Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND
PHILOSOPHICAL FACULTY
SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES
English Language and Translation
Laura Kristiina Lehtoaro
Editorials, Elections and Persuasion – Semantic Representation in Ideologically Polarized
Discourse in The New York Post and The New York Times
Pro Gradu Thesis
January 2013
ITÄ-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO – UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND
Tiedekunta – Faculty Philosophical Faculty
Osasto – School School of Humanities
Tekijät – Author Lehtoaro, Laura Kristiina
Työn nimi – Title Editorials, Elections and Persuasion – Semantic Representation in Ideologically Polarized Discourse in The New York Post and The New York Times
Pääaine – Main subject Työn laji – Level Päivämäärä – Date Sivumäärä – Number of pages
English Language and Translation Pro gradu -tutkielma x 17.1.2013 88 + appendixes
Sivuainetutkielma Kandidaatin tutkielma Aineopintojen tutkielma
Tiivistelmä – Abstract The aim of this research was to analyze persuasion and ideological discourse organization in the editorials of The New York Post (NYP) and The New York Times (NYT). More precisely, the analysis concentrated on how the two newspapers represented and depicted the presidential candidates of the 2008 presidential elections in the United States. Both newspapers endorsed a different candidate in the elections. This kind of competitive setting is ideal for persuasion and ideological opinion management. The analysis was based on two theoretical notions: transitivity, which is part of the systemic-functional grammar by Halliday (1985; Halliday and Matthiessen 2004), and the ideological square by van Dijk (1998). These constructs have been previously used in studies of ideological discourse of various kinds. In this study, these notions were used to analyze how presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain were semantically and ideologically represented by the two newspapers during the election campaign. The analysis was divided into two sections. In the ideological analysis both qualitative and quantitative methods were used while the transitivity analysis was purely qualitative. The results of the ideological analysis demonstrated that the two newspapers differed considerably at the macro level of analysis. While both newspapers employed van Dijk’s strategies of positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation, NYT was more balanced in its discussion of the presidential candidates. The results of the transitivity analysis were somewhat more inconclusive. The analysis showed similar patterns in use in both newspapers under investigation but also demonstrated tendencies that seemed to be motivated by other factors than ideological ones. Therefore, it is unclear to what extent the differences in the transitivity structures were caused by ideological choices concerning representational strategies and to what extent they were motivated by some other factors. It seems that other linguistic elements, such as choices in modality, may have contributed more to the persuasive appeal of the editorials. Therefore, the findings of this study do not support the previous research in which a link between participant roles and ideological discourse organization has been established.
Avainsanat – Keywords editorial, election, persuasion, media, ideology, ideological square, transitivity
Contents
1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
2 Editorials and persuasion .................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Editorials ................................................................................................................. 4
2.2 Persuasion ................................................................................................................ 5
2.3 Linguistic structures as devices of persuasion ........................................................ 8
3 Ideological discourse organization ................................................................................... 10
3.1 Social groups and ideology ................................................................................... 10
3.2 Ideological square .................................................................................................. 12
4 Semantic representation in discourse ................................................................................ 15
4.1 Participant roles ..................................................................................................... 15
4.2 Transitivity ............................................................................................................ 17
4.2.1 Central processes and participants ............................................................. 18
4.2.2 Intermediary processes and participants .................................................... 22
4.2.3 Other participants ...................................................................................... 25
4.2.4 Circumstantial elements ............................................................................ 28
5 Data, methods and research questions .............................................................................. 31
5.1 Data ....................................................................................................................... 31
5.2 Methodology ......................................................................................................... 32
5.2.1 Ideological analysis ................................................................................... 32
5.2.2 Transitivity analysis ................................................................................... 33
5.3 Aims ...................................................................................................................... 34
6 Results ............................................................................................................................... 35
6.1 General remarks on the editorials .......................................................................... 35
6.2 Ideological analysis ............................................................................................... 36
6.2.1 Quantitative analysis ................................................................................. 36
6.2.2 Persuasive strategies used in the editorials ................................................ 38
6.2.3 The Acorn story ......................................................................................... 42
6.3 Transitivity analysis .............................................................................................. 43
6.3.1 The New York Post on McCain (Self) ....................................................... 44
6.3.2 The New York Post on Obama (Other) ...................................................... 50
6.3.3 The New York Times on Obama (Self) ...................................................... 55
6.3.4 The New York Times on McCain (Other) .................................................. 66
7 Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 75
7.1 Ideological analysis ............................................................................................... 75
7.2 Transitivity analysis .............................................................................................. 77
7.2.1 Variation explained by van Dijk’s ideological square............................... 78
7.2.2 Variation explained by other factors ......................................................... 81
8 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 84
References ................................................................................................................................ 86
Appendixes
Appendix 1: List of analyzed editorials of The New York Post (NYP)
Appendix 2: List of analyzed editorials of The New York Times (NYT)
Appendix 3: Ideological orientation toward the Self and the Other in NYP and NYT (with
the categories “unclassifiable” and “no mention”)
Finnish summary
1
1 Introduction
Journalism has social effects: through its power to shape issue agendas and public
discourse, it can reinforce beliefs; it can shape people’s opinions […] or, if not shape
your opinions on a particular matter, it can at the very least influence what you have
opinions on; in sum, it can help shape social reality by shaping our views of social
reality. (Richardson 2007: 13)
The relationships between media, politics (all genres) and ‘people’ are very complex.
Up to now, we have not been able to provide clear answers about who influences who
and how these influences are directed. (Wodak 2001b: 64)
According to Fairclough (1995: 2), the mass media has “power to influence knowledge,
beliefs, values, social relations, [and] social identities”. This means that the press, as one
influential part of the mass media, has many possibilities to influence the reading public and
its opinions. Since the media has a powerful role in people’s everyday lives, it has a great
responsibility over the media content it produces. What is presented as neutral and objective
may not always be so, and therefore it is important to analyze the messages of the media more
thoroughly.
The presidential elections of 2008 in the United States were historical in many ways. Barack
Obama was the first African American to be elected as the president of the USA. His election
generated media interest worldwide. The interest during the presidential campaign was also
extremely wide and made the election one of the most monitored events of the year.
Due to these reasons, I want to study the media’s role in this presidential campaign. The aim
of my research is to analyze the persuasive strategies that newspapers use in their editorials
when they discuss the presidential elections and show support to a candidate of their choice.
More specifically, I will analyze how presidential candidates are semantically and
ideologically represented in the editorials of two newspapers with opposite interests. I will
base my analysis on two theoretical notions: transitivity, which is part of the systemic-
functional grammar by Halliday (1985; Halliday and Matthiessen 2004), and the ideological
square by van Dijk (1998). These have been previously used in studies of ideological
discourse of various kinds. I will also address the questions of social identity, intergroup
relations and media influence in public discourse.
2
Two New York-based newspapers, namely The New York Post (NYP) and The New York
Times (NYT) were chosen for the study of media discourse during the US presidential
elections of 2008. These two newspapers were chosen due to their similar daily circulation,
their readership’s location in the same geographical area and their public endorsement of
different candidates, i.e. Barack Obama and John McCain, in the elections.
I borrow the methodological framework – and much of the theoretical framework as well –
for my research from critical discourse analysis (CDA), which has become one of the most
widely used approaches in media studies during the past few decades (see, e.g. Bell 2006:
615; McKay 2006: 598). The data of CDA research has usually consisted of speeches by
politicians, parliamentary debates, media reports and editorials, but also school textbooks,
advertisements and workplace meeting interactions have been studied (van Leeuwen 2006:
291). The studies have focused on racism, anti-Semitism, immigration, neoliberalism,
education, war and terrorism as well as unemployment, among others (ibid.). Yet, I want to
refrain from the openly sociopolitical agenda, which characterizes CDA research of various
kinds. Critical discourse analysis has been criticized for its explicitly ideological orientation,
and indeed, critical discourse analysts declare “a common goal: the critique of the hegemonic
discourses and genres” (van Leeuwen 2006: 291).1 To Wodak (2001a: 9), the very word
‘critical’ means “taking a political stance explicitly”. While I share an interest with CDA
toward the concepts of ‘power’ and ‘ideology’, my intention is not to reveal ‘discrimination’
or ‘prejudice’ prevalent in the news media. Neither is my stance toward the issues under
discussion “explicitly political” in that I do not wish to take a position on the matters
presented but simply to present the results as neutrally as possible. However, at the same time,
I admit that there is no “objective” science, since all human communication is affected to
some extent by each individual’s subjective views and background.
The American news-making tradition is accustomed to publishing the stance of the newspaper
during the presidential elections through public endorsements of a particular candidate. The
editorial is a place for this stance-taking and therefore a place for considerable influence-
making. My research will hopefully make a contribution to the understanding of the
mechanisms of persuasion by uncovering some of the strategies newspaper editorials use to
achieve this effect.
1 For an opposing point of view, see Widdowson (2004). He praises the sociopolitical agenda of CDA but, on the
other hand, criticizes the approach methodologically.
3
This thesis is divided into eight chapters. The next chapter discusses persuasion, an essential
element of all argumentative texts, while relating the concept to its historical antecedent of
rhetoric and also to the genre of editorials. In chapter three, the issues of social identity, group
ideologies and ideological discourse organization are addressed. Chapter four, then, discusses
semantic representation in discourse through the introduction of participant roles and the
system of transitivity by Halliday. In chapter five, the data, methods and research questions
for this study are introduced, whereas chapters six and seven present and discuss the results,
treating the two parts of the analysis, i.e. the ideological and the transitivity analyses, in
separate sections. Finally, chapter eight concludes the research by summarizing the main
findings of the analysis and considering possibilities for future research.
4
2 Editorials and persuasion
2.1 Editorials
Editorials are short, argumentative texts that are unsigned and appear in the first pages of a
newspaper, in the so-called Op-Ed section. Editorials as a genre can be said to have appeared
first in the mid-nineteenth century when newspapers in their present form started to be
published (Kress 1985: 28). They form a genre of journalism which not only “reports” but
also provides “a judgement of an event” (Richardson 2007: 60). Thus, editorials differ
inherently from news articles, which aim at presenting news objectively, without taking
particular positions. Editorials, on the other hand, “are argumentative and aim to persuade by
explaining” (Le 2006: 214). As the openly opinion-related text type, they represent the
official position of the newspaper on various matters (Le 2006: 15).
Several factors contribute to the status of editorials as an influential genre of journalism. First,
editorials have large audiences. As part of the public discourse in the media, editorials reach a
wide readership and, therefore, they have a great potential for influence-making (van Dijk
1998: 265). In other words, editorials have substantial power as a participant in public
discourse. It should be noted, however, that the audiences of editorials are not homogenous.
As Virtanen and Halmari (2005: 13) point out, editorials “are simultaneously directed to
several audiences”. There is one audience that can be interpreted as primary and several
others that need not be directly addressed.
Second, editorials contribute to public discourse as participants, as suggested above, but, at
the same time, provide an arena for another, “virtual” public discourse that is realized in the
text through another set of participants (Le 2006: 64). This set frequently involves
institutional speakers and representatives (van Dijk 1998: 265). They have authority, which
gives them credibility. Furthermore, when editorials appear in prestigious dailies, such as The
New York Times, they are even more effective since they can be taken to represent “the
opinion of an influential part of society, an opinion that is read and commented on by the
elite” (Le 2006: 15).
5
Third, editorials usually represent the newspaper’s “specific framing of the issue” (Le 2006:
15, referring to Nacos 1990: 188), that is, they present the position of the newspaper on
specific news events and, thus, are indicative of the newspaper’s handling of these events in
the news articles. This means that the views presented in the editorial pages (Op-Ed section)
may also be reflected on individual news articles and the news production process at large.
The way in which editorials approach different topical issues can thus affect the handling of
related matters in individual news reports. This makes editorials an important object of
research in the analysis of persuasion and ideology, and testifies to the importance of
editorials as a journalistic genre.
2.2 Persuasion
Editorials are inherently argumentative, as suggested above, and therefore they also involve
persuasion. The roots of persuasion are in ancient Greece where Aristotle laid the foundations
for theoretical thinking on the “means of persuasion” (Aristotle 1991: 36–47). His concepts of
ethos, pathos and logos, referring to the character of the speaker, emotion and argumentation
(see Aristotle 1991), have affected theorization on rhetoric ever since (Gill and Whedbee
1997: 158). While modern definitions for the concept vary, two themes usually appear:
rhetoric is essentially related to politics and it is “discourse calculated to influence an
audience toward some end” (Gill and Whedbee 1997: 157).
Rhetoric can be used for various purposes. It can be used to persuade people, affect decision-
making in communities or advance cooperation (Gill and Whedbee 1997: 157). What is
essential is that rhetoric “is a type of instrumental discourse. It is, in one way or another, a
vehicle for responding to, reinforcing, or altering the understandings of an audience or the
social fabric of the community” (ibid.). A text that is rhetorical changes the world in some
way, for example by inducing action (Gill and Whedbee 1997: 161).
The rhetorical tradition of the past has continued in research on persuasion, extending it to
new areas of study. Scholars studying persuasion are interested in wide range of phenomena,
and the research extends from politics and the media to private or semiprivate domains, such
as business negotiations (see, e.g. Halmari and Virtanen 2005a). This being the case, it is no
surprise that, e.g. Sornig (1989: 95) discusses the pervasiveness of persuasive features in all
6
types of discourse: “there is no such thing as a ‘pure’, unbiased statement: the process of
verbalizing thoughts and transmitting ideas involves the simultaneous signaling of purposes,
aims and wishes along with the message itself.” That is, whenever something is said, an
element of persuasion is involved. The communicator adopts a certain perspective whenever
speaking or writing.
Virtanen and Halmari (2005: 3; emphasis in the original) define persuasion as “all linguistic
behavior that attempts to either change the thinking or behavior of an audience, or to
strengthen its beliefs, should the audience already agree”, thus delimiting persuasion to
linguistic expression only. Perloff (2003: 8), in turn, following the positions of Andersen
(1971), Smith (1982), Bettinghaus and Cody (1987) and O’Keefe (1990), states that
persuasion is “a symbolic process in which communicators try to convince other people to
change their attitudes or behavior regarding an issue through the transmission of a message, in
an atmosphere of free choice”. He acknowledges the existence of other modes, in addition to
linguistic signs, that can be used persuasively in communication. Furthermore, he emphasizes
free will as a prerequisite for persuasion: people should be in a position to accept the
persuasive message or not. That is, persuasion is not based on coercion. What these
definitions together suggest is that persuasion should be seen as a symbolic process in which
the communicator tries to influence the audience’s views or behavior without being coercive.
Other criteria that are essential for successful persuasion are formulated by van Dijk (1998:
244–6). He states that discourse understanding and influence are obtained both through
structures of discourse and cognitive processing of the recipient. The persuasive effects are
thus realized not only in the present/ongoing discourse but also through previous, already-
existing knowledge and beliefs. A necessary precondition for effective persuasion is
comprehension. That is, influencing beliefs is only successful when what is being said is
understood by the recipient. There are several factors that facilitate persuasion. Due to
individual differences in the quantity and quality of background information, that is, in the
personal and social beliefs that people have before certain ideologies are acquired or changed,
persuasive effects of a specific discourse vary. Persuasion is most effective when recipients
lack social or political knowledge or do not have alternative interpretations available for them
to analyze and compare. Furthermore, if the reader’s or hearer’s previous experiences support
the ideological message conveyed, the effectiveness of persuasion increases. In addition,
contextual factors affect discourse comprehension. Van Dijk also points out that it is not
7
always necessary that discourses be explicitly ideological to be ideologically effective. Thus,
discourses may have differing effects on people’s beliefs – some of them being more
permanent than others.
What, then, makes a persuasive message? Perloff (2003: 206), referring to several scholars in
the field, formulates several key elements of a persuasive message. According to him,
messages that discuss both the pros and the cons are more effective than messages that only
discuss one side of the issue; this requires, however, that arguments against the speaker’s
stand are refuted. In addition, stating the conclusion explicitly is more effective than leaving it
implicit. Furthermore, evidence reinforces persuasion. However, researchers disagree whether
“emotional” evidence, narrative evidence or statistical evidence is more effective (Perloff
2003: 182–4). According to Halmari and Virtanen (2005b: 230–1), effective persuasion also
requires “entering into dialogue with the audience”, i.e. adapting the message to the changing
views and demands of the audience. This means that persuasion is dynamic in essence and
requires careful context management from the communicator. However, as Sornig (1989:
109) points out, persuasion is most effective when people share similar affective motivations,
expectations and preferences.
In editorials, the persuasive effect is achieved “by relating new facts to already known ones,
by appearing ‘objective’ and well-informed while presenting others’ positions (for reasons of
credibility), and by positioning the author’s voice in the targeted community” (Le 2006: 214).
What is said here is that editorials, despite representing opinions, should also rely on factual
information and external expertise in order to be convincing. In a similar vein, Virtanen and
Halmari (2005: 6) state that “[e]ditorials attempt to appeal to the rational thinking processes
of the readers by providing ‘hard data’, for instance, in the form of poll and survey results”.
However, also emotional appeals are made covertly, e.g. through lexical choices (ibid.).
To Sornig (1989: 96), persuasion is pre-eminently “a stylistic procedure”. The communicator
uses certain stylistic elements to highlight a certain perspective and to make the recipient
accept the views put forth by the communicator (Sornig 1989: 95). The focus is given to some
semantic features while “others are obscured by the semiotic elements that surround them, i.e.
by the influence of co- and contextual environment” (ibid.).
8
2.3 Linguistic structures as devices of persuasion
Several linguistic structures have been identified to serve persuasive (and ideological)
purposes. According to Richardson (2007: 47), the analysis of news discourse can be
conducted at different levels. He identifies features of the lexicon, e.g. referential strategies,
attributes and collocations, syntactic elements, such as transitivity and modality,
presupposition, narrative structure as well as rhetorical tropes as the possible object of
analysis. Fowler (1985: 68–74), on the other hand, mainly referring to the work done in
critical linguistics, lists linguistic structures that may demonstrate ideology. Among these are
speech acts, implicature and, for example, personal reference and naming conventions, in
addition to transitivity and modality. Sornig (1989: 100) adds to this list quoting someone
else’s statements. Deletion and elliptic language are also one example of persuasive language
use (Sornig 1989: 102; Fowler 1985: 71). Van Dijk (2006: 732) relates discourse, politics and
ideology in the study of political discourse structures, namely of biased lexical items, active
and passive voice, pronouns of inclusion and exclusion, metaphors, arguments and
implications (see van Dijk 1995 and 1998 for further discussion on ideological features in
discourse).
The linguistic structures listed above belong to different levels of linguistic description, which
means that analysis of persuasion and ideology can be conducted at different levels and at
varying depth. For instance, referential strategies such as personal reference and naming
conventions belong to the lexical dimension of discourse. Similarly, attributes, collocations
and biased lexical elements are analyzed at this level. Variation between actives and passives,
choices in transitivity and modality as well as elliptic language use can be seen as the
realization of the syntactic level of analysis. The study of speech acts, implicature and
presupposition, on the other hand, have to do with pragmatic aspects of language use. The
analysis of narrative structure, by contrast, is situated at the textual level of linguistic
description.
All of the linguistic features presented above can be used in persuasive, ideologically-oriented
ways. The way these structures are used, however, presupposes a certain “frame of mind”, a
cognitive macrostrategy based on the division of people into separate and differing groups,
that is, a polarized view of competing social groups. The next chapter discusses these
polarities in more detail by introducing a theoretical framework for the division of people into
9
ingroups and outgroups, into Us and Them, and the possible ways these polarities can be
emphasized in discourse.
10
3 Ideological discourse organization
In this chapter, the ideologically-based division of people into Us and Them, into “our group”
and “their group”, that is present in many ideological contexts (politics being a prime
example), will be addressed. The mechanism in polarized discourse between the ingroup and
the outgroup is fairly straightforward and it is based on differing ideologies between social
groups. I will clarify the relevant concepts of social identity, ideology and ideological
discourse in the following sub-sections.
3.1 Social groups and ideology
In what has become to be known as the Social Identity Theory, social psychologist Tajfel
(1978, 1981) addresses issues of attitude formation, group identity and stereotypes. He
defines social identity “as that part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his
knowledge of his membership of a social group (or groups) together with the value and
emotional significance attached to that membership” (Tajfel 1981: 255; emphasis in the
original). According to him, “[t]he notion of social identity is based on the simple
motivational assumption that individuals (at least in our culture) prefer a positive to a negative
self-image” (Tajfel 1981: 45; emphasis in the original). Tajfel is interested in group identities,
which divide people to ingroups and outgroups. Social stereotypes are formed when ingroup
members are assigned certain characteristics different from the members of the outgroup
(Tajfel 1981: 115). He presents (e.g. in chapter 13) several examples of ingroup favoritism
and discrimination against the outgroup. Tajfel’s theory of social identity has later been
developed by his colleague Turner (see Tajfel and Turner 1979; Turner et al. 1987) in what is
called the Self-Categorization Theory (Joseph 2006: 488).
Van Dijk (1998) incorporates elements from Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory in his
presentation and discussion of ideology. He relates group identities to ideology and identifies
politics as the pre-eminent field for ideology since there are various opposed groups, interests
and power struggles present (van Dijk 2006: 732). According to van Dijk (2006: 732),
“[o]ne’s political identity, stances, and allegiances are not so much defined in terms of
structural group membership, such as membership of a political party, but rather in terms of
11
one’s ideology”. This means that Social Identity Theory and its analysis of group loyalties can
be related to politics specifically through ideology, i.e. through ideological similarities and
differences as considered by opposing political/ideological groups.
‘Ideology’ is a complex concept, and researchers disagree on its definition (van Dijk 1998: 1).
What has marked classical, and also everyday, definitions of ideology is the notion’s use as a
pejorative term: traditionally ideologies have been viewed as false beliefs associated to
political opponents and those in place of power and dominance (van Dijk 1998: 1–2). In
current research, the notion is usually described more neutrally and ideologies are rather
defined “as political or social systems of ideas, values or prescriptions of groups or other
collectivities [that] have the function of organizing or legitimating the actions of the group”
(van Dijk 1998: 3). They are “the basis of the social representations shared by members of a
group” (van Dijk 1998: 8, emphasis in the original) and “[d]epending on one’s perspective,
group membership or ethics, these group ideas may be valued positively, negatively, or not be
valued at all” (van Dijk 2006: 729). As such, ideologies are not inherently negative or
applicable only to dominant groups. Rather, these “specific, fundamental beliefs of groups of
people” (van Dijk 2006: 729) pertain to both dominant and dominated groups as well as to
equally powerful groups in competition with each other (ibid.; van Dijk 1998: 11).
As formulated above, ideologies are essentially group-based. According to van Dijk (1998:
154), “ideologies and groups mutually constitute each other. No group can socially exist and
act without a group identity and shared ideological beliefs of its members.” Essential in the
formation and reproduction of group identities are the group’s relations to other groups. These
relations are “fundamental in the development and support of ideologies, and conversely […]
ideologies are at the basis of the social practices that implement such group relations” (van
Dijk 1998: 171). Thus, the relationship between group identities, intergroup relations and
ideology is very complex. Groups are formed based on shared ideological beliefs, which
differ from the beliefs of other, competing groups. The competition between groups, on the
other hand, helps develop and maintain ideologies in the first place. Furthermore, while
intergroup relations are fundamental for the existence of ideologies, ideologies are
fundamental in the formation of social practices that realize and reproduce such group
relations.
12
3.2 Ideological square
Group identities and ideologies are formulated between members of a group and in relation to
other groups often in discourse. People “engage [in intergroup discourse] for reasons of self-
presentation, self-defence, legitimation, persuasion, recruiting, and so on” (Van Dijk 1998:
125). Discourse is thus the arena for many processes that help to create and sustain groups as
well as intergroup relations. Intergroup discourse is often polarized between Us versus Them
dichotomy. Van Dijk (1998: 267) presents a four-dimensional classification that characterizes
ideological intergroup discourse. This “ideological square” contains the following acts:
1 Express/emphasize information that is positive about Us.
2 Suppress/de-emphasize information that is negative about Us.
3 Express/emphasize information that is negative about Them.
4 Suppress/de-emphasize information that is positive about Them.
This classification is based on the motivations of the speaker/writer. It is usually in the
interests of the speaker or writer to emphasize positive aspects of the ingroup and de-
emphasize any negative aspects. Similarly, emphasizing the negative aspects of the outgroup
and de-emphasizing any positive aspects works in favor of the speaker/writer and his/her own
group. Van Dijk (1998: 267) names these overall strategies as the “positive self-presentation”
and “negative other-presentation”.2 When studying ideology in discourse, specific attention
should be paid to properties that seem to demonstrate conflicting opinions, values and
positions between groups, that is, between Us and Them, between ingroups and outgroups
(van Dijk 1995: 22).
Van Dijk (2006: 735–9) exemplifies the semantic macrostrategies of positive self-presentation
and negative other-presentation in extracts from a debate in the British House of Commons in
1997 about asylum seekers. During the debate, a representative for the conservative party,
Mrs Gorman, criticized a Romanian asylum seeker in the following way:
2 Chilton (2004: 45–7), adapting the classification by Chilton and Schäffner (1997: 211–5), introduces three
different strategies through which people can manage communication and control their interests. Based on the
Habermasian notion of “strategic” language use, one of his strategies, namely legitimization/delegitimization,
coincides with van Dijk’s strategies of positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation.
13
In one case, a man from Romania, who came over here on a coach tour for a football
match (...) decided that he did not want to go back, declared himself an asylum seeker
and is still here 4 years later. He has never done a stroke of work in his life (Gorman).
(van Dijk 2006: 735)
Opposing the costs to the state, Mrs Gorman gives a very gloomy description of the
Romanian man, one of the outgroup, a member of them. According to van Dijk, asylum
seekers are systematically presented by Mrs Gorman as “benefit seekers” or “bogus
immigrants” (van Dijk 2006: 738). This tactic is called negative other-presentation. Similarly,
van Dijk (2006: 739) argues that positive self-presentation demonstrates itself in discourse on
immigration as “an emphasis of own tolerance, hospitality [and] lack of bias”, among other
things. Also compliance with the law or international agreements works in favor of the
speaker as in:
I entirely support the policy of the Government to help genuine asylum seekers, but…
(Gorman, C). (van Dijk 2006: 739)
Here, Mrs Gorman softens her views by referring to a generally-accepted government policy
before starting her own argument about immigrants, thus maintaining a positive face and
positive self-presentation of her own group.
The above examples demonstrate that, by using certain types of language, the world can be
represented in specific ways. Speaking about negative attitudes toward minorities, van Dijk
(1995: 24) states that certain syntactic strategies, by highlighting “responsible agency”, can be
used to emphasize negative aspects of the outgroup. Similarly, the same strategies can be used
to emphasize positive aspects of the ingroup. The negative aspects of the ingroup, on the other
hand, may be de-emphasized, for example through the use of passive sentences or
nominalizations, which permit deletion of both agency and modality (Fowler 1985: 71).
Choices between actives and passives and between explicit or implicit subjects as well as
modifications in word order may have ideological grounds since these structures may be used
ideologically to highlight or suppress agency and responsibility for actions (van Dijk 1998:
203).
Who is seen as the hero or the villain, the perpetrator or the victim of an act, which
roles need to be emphasized or concealed, are questions that organize many
ideological attitudes, and such perceptions may directly be mapped into propositional
14
structures and their variable syntactic formulations (actives, passives, nominalizations
and so on). (van Dijk 1998: 206)
In what follows, the division of social groups into Us and Them is examined through one
system of representation in language, namely transitivity (Halliday 1985; Halliday and
Matthiessen 2004). However, I will begin by shortly introducing what is meant by semantic
representation in discourse in general.
15
4 Semantic representation in discourse
4.1 Participant roles
It was suggested above that events, activities and people may be variably represented in
discourse by using specific linguistic and syntactic structures. Participant roles are one
example of the ways events and their participants may be associated (van Dijk 1998: 206).
These roles affect the ways people are perceived to be participating in a given phenomenon,
that is, whether they are seen as active or passive participants, responsible for the actions or
not. Participant roles are a type of functional relations that determine the relationship between
predicate and its arguments (Van Valin 2006: 683). They are essential in how “real world”
events and phenomena are coded linguistically. Participant roles have many names. In
different linguistic theories, they are variously named as semantic roles, case roles, semantic
case roles, thematic relations, θ-roles (theta-roles) and participant roles (Van Valin 2006:
683). Halliday (1985, Halliday and Matthiessen 2004) describes these notions under
transitivity.
Participant roles in their simplest form describe “who did what to whom” (Van Valin 2006:
683). For example, in John broke the glass, John is a willful initiator of the event, i.e. an
agent, while in The window broke, the window is the unvolitional patient, which is affected by
the action (Van Valin 2006: 685). There is no universally agreed set of participant roles (Van
Valin 2006: 684). Different theories propose different number of roles, but certain roles
systematically appear in several theories (Van Valin 2006: 684–5). These include the roles of
agent, patient, experiencer, instrument, force, theme, recipient, goal and source.
Participant roles have repeatedly been shown to work as one example of ideological discourse
organization. Chilton (2004: 201–5) identifies them as one element of political discourse and
Cumming and Ono (1997: 125–6) point to research findings that relate participant roles to the
position taken by the speaker or writer. According to Cumming and Ono, agents or subjects
are syntactically important because they are often interpreted as representing the speaker’s or
writer’s point of view or are considered the responsible participant in an event.
16
Transitivity analysis by Halliday has been used as a tool in analyses of power and
responsibility among CDA researchers where it has proven useful (Ryder 2006: 45). For that
reason, I have chosen transitivity analysis as a method in my own work and will use the
concept in analyzing the ways NYP and NYT write about the presidential candidates.
Studies on political discourse and the media that use Hallidayan framework to analyze
representational meaning and participant functions vary from purely qualitative analyses to
those that try to incorporate quantitative methods into the research. Relevant for my research
are the following studies that relate to my research through the genre of editorials, presidential
elections or through the newspapers analyzed. Oktar (2001), for instance, studied editorials in
two Turkish newspapers and linked transitivity patterns to ideological discourse organization
by using the ideological square by van Dijk. Her research suggests that the division between
Us and Them can be achieved in discourse through varying choices in representational
processes (the own vs. the opposing group). Li (2011) investigated representational strategies
and ideology in the discourses of The New York Times and China Daily. Similarly, Jahedi and
Abdullah (2012) studied The New York Times in its representation of Iran through choices in
transitivity, thematization and lexicalization.3 Chen (2007) analyzed newspaper articles
published in the UK Times and the English-language China Daily by applying Halliday’s
notion of transitivity (verbal processes in specific) and her own classification of verbal
processes into negative, positive and neutral categories. She found that there were
considerable differences in the patterns that the newspapers employed when introducing
quoted information in the news stories (Times skepticism and doubt, China Daily approval
and support). Durán (2008), instead, analyzed the acceptance speeches by George W. Bush
and John Kerry in their respective National Conventions during the presidential campaign of
2004.
However, what seems to be lacking in some studies generally conducted in the framework of
CDA on political discourse, the media and/or ideology is the kind of systematicity that would
be very much needed in order to strengthen the plausibility of Halliday’s theory as an
analytical tool. This shortcoming has been addressed in some other studies that are geared
specifically toward systematic application of the concept of transitivity (see, e.g. Alameda-
3 The New York Times has been the object of study also in, e.g. Virtanen (2005) and Le (2006). Virtanen studied
public opinion polls and surveys in NYT editorials in order to find out their significance as a persuasive device.
Le investigated the role of the media in the construction of national identity and used van Dijk’s ideological
square as one method to analyze the editorials of NYT and Le Monde.
17
Hernández 2006, 2008; Krizsán 2011). These combine transitivity analysis with corpus
linguistics through the use of vast amounts of data and, in some cases, the application of
statistical significance tests. I hope to contribute to this more systematic tradition in
transitivity research, despite the fact that I am not using a quantitative approach in my
analysis.
4.2 Transitivity
The notion of transitivity (Halliday 1985; Halliday and Matthiessen 2004) relates to how
events and their participants are represented in discourse.4 Based on semantic categories of
process, participant and circumstance, transitivity describes how different phenomena taking
place in the real world can be coded linguistically (Halliday 1985: 102; Halliday and
Matthiessen 2004: 178). In any event, there can be three elements involved: the process itself,
the participants and the circumstances. Thus, transitivity then “specifies the different types of
process that are recognized in the language, and the structures by which they are expressed”
(Halliday 1985: 101).
Halliday (1985: 102–31; Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 179–259) divides processes into six
different types: material, mental, relational, behavioral, verbal and existential (see Table 1).
These all have their own participants that are directly involved in the process. In addition,
there are participant types that appear in more than one process type as well as circumstantial
elements, which are not bound to any specific process. Processes are typically realized by
verbal group, participants by nominal group and circumstances by adverbial group or by
prepositional phrase (Halliday 1985: 102; Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 177–8).
Halliday and Matthiessen (2004: 172) point out that the process types are “fuzzy categories”:
they have prototypical members and less prototypical members that share characteristics of
different process types and are at the boundaries of different process categories. However,
each process type in general has distinctive features which separate them from other process
4 The discussion mainly follows Halliday’s 1985 account but is updated to correspond the changes in the revised
2004 edition whenever necessary. Theoretical modifications of the newer edition are commented as needed. The
older edition has been chosen as the basis of the discussion as it presents the core elements of the theory in a
clear and concise manner. The 2004 revision adds further depth to the theory of transitivity as well as provides
many valuable corpus examples that can be used as an aid in the analysis.
18
Table 1. Process types and participant roles (Halliday 1985: 131; updates from Halliday and
Matthiessen 2004: 260)
Process type Category meaning Participants
Material:
action
event
‘doing’
‘doing’
‘happening’
Actor, Goal
Behavioral ‘behaving’ Behaver
Mental:
perception
emotion1
cognition
desideration2
‘sensing’
‘seeing’
‘feeling’
‘thinking’
‘wanting’
Senser, Phenomenon
Verbal ‘saying’ Sayer, Target
Relational:
attribution
identification
‘being’
‘attributing’
‘identifying’
Carrier, Attribute
Identified, Identifier
Existential ‘existing’ Existent
1 “Affection” in older terminology (Halliday 1985: 111)
2 This category not present in Halliday 1985
types so that, for instance, mental clauses must have one conscious participant. I will
introduce the process types, participants and circumstantial elements in more detail in the
following four subsections.
4.2.1 Central processes and participants
Material processes (Halliday 1985: 102–6; Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 179–97) are
defined as “processes of doing and happening”. These correspond to the traditional division of
clauses into transitive and intransitive types. There are two participants involved: an Actor
who does something to some entity and a Goal which is affected by this action or event. An
example would be The lion caught the tourist, in which the lion is an Actor and the tourist is a
Goal.5 A transitive clause has both an Actor and a Goal, while intransitive clauses have only
one participant, an Actor (Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 180). Material processes can be
further divided into transformative material processes and creative material processes.6 In
transformative material processes something is “done to” an entity, as in the example above,
5 All examples, presented in italics, taken or adapted from Halliday (1985: 102–44) unless mentioned otherwise.
6 “Transformative” is the term used by Halliday and Matthiessen (2004: 184, 185–6). I find it more informative
than the previously used term “dispositive” (Halliday 1985: 104).
19
while in creative material processes an entity is “brought about”, that is, created by the
process, as in building a house or writing a letter.
Mental processes (Halliday 1985: 106–12; Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 197–210) consist
of processes of “sensing”. The participants in a mental process are Senser, “the conscious
being that is feeling, thinking or seeing”, and Phenomenon, “that which is ‘sensed’” (Halliday
1985: 111). There are four main subtypes of mental processes.7 Perception involves
phenomena such as seeing and hearing, emotion phenomena of liking and fearing, cognition
phenomena like thinking, knowing and understanding, and desideration those of wanting.
There are five main criteria that can be used to separate mental processes from material ones
(Halliday 1985: 108–11). First, in mental processes one participant is always “human-like”,
i.e. “endowed with consciousness”. Pronominally this participant is expressed by ‘he’ or
‘she’, not by ‘it’. Second, in a mental process clause the participant that is being sensed, that
is, the Phenomenon, can be a fact or an act, in addition to thing, unlike in material clauses.8
Thus, in mental process clauses “facts can be sensed”, but in material process clauses facts
cannot do anything and they can neither be objects of such doing. Third, the unmarked
present tense is different for mental and material processes: in mental process clauses the
unmarked tense is simple present, while in material process clauses the unmarked form is
“present in present”, that is, the present continuous. Fourth, mental processes are “two-way
processes”, i.e. they are bidirectional without changing the voice of the clause.
[I]t is a general feature of mental processes that they can be realized in either direction
– either the senser, or the phenomenon that is being sensed, can be the Subject, still
keeping the clause in the active voice. (Halliday 1985: 110)
Halliday gives as an example the clauses Mary liked the gift and The gift pleased Mary. Other
similar verb pairs are fear/frighten, wonder/amaze, understand/puzzle, enjoy/delight,
forget/escape, notice/strike, believe/convince, admire/impress, mind/upset. In material
processes, there is no similar bidirectionality. Finally, mental processes cannot be probed by
do-questions like material processes (What did John do?).
7 The fourth subtype, desideration, has been added in Halliday and Matthiessen (2004: 208).
8 The “act” is only introduced in Halliday and Matthiessen (2004: 203, 204–6). The “fact” is typically expressed
by a finite clause, while the “act” is realized by a non-finite clause with present participle or an infinitive without
the infinitive marker to as verbal element (Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 204–5).
20
There is one more additional aspect that separates mental processes from material ones,
namely, the number of participants in a process. Unlike material processes, which contain
either one or two participants depending on whether the process is intransitive or transitive,
mental processes usually have both a Senser and a Phenomenon unless either of the two has
been left implicit. Thus, when Jill can’t see, there usually is something that cannot be seen but
this something is left implicit (Halliday 1985: 112). In intransitive material processes, as in
John ran, there is no such participant that could be left out.
Mental process clauses have one additional feature that makes them special compared to most
other process types. They have the ability to project ideas or “the content of consciousness”
through another clause or a set of clauses (Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 199). This means
that mental clauses can function as introductory clauses to present inner workings of one’s
mind. A similar ability is only with verbal clauses in relation to what has been said.
Relational processes (Halliday 1985: 112–28; Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 210–48) form
the third main category of process types. These processes are processes of “being” and are
essentially related to what “is”. Hence, while material clauses describe “outer experience” of
the real world and mental clauses describe “inner experience” of consciousness, relational
clauses express these both, but not as forms of “doing” or “sensing” but as forms of “being”
(Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 211). Halliday and Matthiessen clarify that this “being”
always happens in relation to something else; there are two separate entities involved. Thus,
relational processes should be distinguished from “being” as “existence”, which is expressed
by existential clauses (Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 213).
Relational process clauses, like mental clauses, express the event “as a uniform flow without
distinct phases of unfolding” (Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 211–2). This means that, in
relational and mental clauses, there is no change from an initial state to a final state as in
material process clauses. Thus, relational clauses describe static location, static possession or
static quality, while material clauses describe dynamic motion, transfer of possession or
change in quality. Examples would be She’s in the dining room (relational) and She’s walking
into the dining room (material) (Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 212).
Relational processes can be divided into attributive and identifying “modes”. The attributive
mode describes an entity through an attribute, as in Sarah is wise. In the identifying mode,
21
“one entity is used to identify another”, as in Tom is the leader (Halliday 1985: 113). This
means that relational processes are realized by copular constructions, which consist of a
copular verb and a subject complement or an adverbial.
Attributive clauses characterize and assess through evaluation (Halliday and Matthiessen
2004: 219). They express class-membership and, therefore, they differ from identifying
clauses which are used for “establishing uniqueness, glossing (technical) names, and
interpreting evidence” (Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 214, 227). Also definitions are an
example of identifying clauses. It could be said that, in relation to attributive clauses,
identifying clauses “[narrow] down the class in question to a class of one […] there is only
one member in the class, a single instance” (Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 228).
The participants in the attributive mode are called the Carrier and the Attribute, and in the
identifying mode, they are called the Identified and the Identifier (see Table 2). The Identifier
is distinguished from the Identified by the intonation pattern: “the Identifier is the element
which carries the tonic accent” (Halliday 1985: 117). Usually this element expresses “new”
information in the clause and is realized in final position when the information focus is
unmarked.
Table 2. Relational process modes, types and participants (adapted from Halliday 1985: 112–
3)
Attributive
‘a is an attribute of x’
Identifying
‘a is the identity of x’
Intensive ‘x is a’ Sarah is wise Tom is the leader
Circumstantial ‘x is at a’ The fair lasts all day Tomorrow is the tenth
Possessive ‘x has a’ Peter has a piano The piano is Peter’s
Carrier Process Attribute Identified Process Identifier
The fundamental difference between identifying and attributive modes is that an identifying
clause has passive, while an attributive clause does not (Halliday 1985: 112–3, 114). This is
due to the fact that an attributive clause has only one “real” participant, the Carrier. In
English, any participant can be Subject of the clause and thus the clause can be expressed in
22
both active and passive voice, but since an attributive clause has only one participant, it has
“only one voice”, i.e. the active (Halliday 1985: 114).9
In addition to the two modes, relational processes can be divided into three “types” (Halliday
1985: 112–28; Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 210–48). These include the intensive,
circumstantial and possessive type. Each serves somewhat different functions in discourse and
is realized differently in the language. Intensive relational clauses express “sameness”
between two entities. Circumstantial relational clauses are related through time, place,
manner, cause, accompaniment, matter, role or angle.10 Possessive relational clauses are
related through ownership. One entity possesses, or owns, contains or involves, the other.
Also part–whole relations are included in possessive relational clauses, according to Halliday
and Matthiessen (2004: 244).
I will not introduce the different types in more detail here since I will not classify my data
according to them. Suffice it to say that Halliday gives a detailed account on the three types.
To obtain more information about relational clauses, including the criteria for their
identification, please refer to Table 3.
4.2.2 Intermediary processes and participants
In addition to the three main process types (material, mental and relational), there are three
intermediary process types. These share characteristics of the main process types. Behavioral
processes (Halliday 1985: 128–9; Halliday and Matthiessen 248–52) “are processes of
physiological and psychological behavior, like breathing, dreaming, smiling, coughing”
(Halliday 1985: 128). The participant in a behavioral process is called the Behaver. It is
usually a conscious being, as in mental processes. Behavioral processes are, however, more
like processes of “doing” and are therefore similar to material processes. Behavioral processes
usually have only one participant, but they may also have circumstantial elements, as in Mary
sighed deeply.
9 It should be noted that since there is no passive form for be, the division between active and passive clauses is
obscured whenever this verb is used (Halliday 1985: 114; Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 228, 231). 10
“Angle” has been added by Halliday and Matthiessen (2004: 240) due to modifications in the category of
circumstantials.
23
Table 3. Relational process modes, types and grammatical elements involved (based on
Halliday 1985: 112–23; updates from Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 219–47)
Par
tici
pan
ts r
eali
zed
as
Att
rib
ute
a n
om
inal
gro
up
wit
h c
om
mo
n
no
un
/ad
ject
ive
as H
ead
Att
rib
ute
a p
rep
osi
tio
nal
ph
rase
, an
ad
ver
bia
l g
rou
p
OR
a n
om
inal
gro
up
Att
rib
ute
a (
po
sses
siv
e)
no
min
al g
roup
Iden
tifi
er a
no
min
al g
rou
p
wit
h (
com
mon
or
pro
per
)
no
un
/pro
no
un a
s H
ead
Iden
tifi
ed a
nd
Id
enti
fier
circ
um
stan
tial
ele
men
ts o
f
tim
e, p
lace
, m
ann
er,
etc.
[OR
a n
om
inal
gro
up]
N/A
[Id
enti
fier
a n
om
inal
gro
up
]
1 T
he
attr
ibu
tiv
e ci
rcu
mst
anti
al t
yp
e h
as t
wo
su
bca
tego
ries
: ci
rcu
mst
ance
ex
pre
ssed
as
the
Att
rib
ute
an
d c
ircu
mst
ance
exp
ress
ed a
s th
e P
roce
ss.
2 T
he
attr
ibu
tiv
e p
oss
essi
ve
typ
e h
as t
wo
su
bca
teg
ori
es:
po
sses
sio
n e
xp
ress
ed a
s th
e A
ttri
bu
te a
nd
po
sses
sio
n e
xp
ress
ed a
s th
e P
roce
ss.
3 T
he
iden
tify
ing
cir
cum
stan
tial
ty
pe
has
tw
o s
ub
cate
go
ries
: ci
rcu
mst
ance
ex
pre
ssed
as
par
tici
pan
ts a
nd
cir
cum
stan
ce e
xp
ress
ed a
s th
e P
roce
ss.
4 T
he
iden
tify
ing
po
sses
siv
e ty
pe
has
tw
o s
ub
cate
gori
es:
po
sses
sio
n e
xp
ress
ed a
s p
arti
cip
ants
an
d p
oss
essi
on
ex
pre
ssed
as
the
Pro
cess
.
NB
: T
he
info
rmat
ion i
n s
qu
are
bra
cket
s is
no
t ex
pli
citl
y s
tate
d b
y H
alli
day
bu
t h
as b
een
infe
rred
fro
m h
is e
xam
ple
s.
Vo
ice
Act
ive
Act
ive
and
pas
siv
e
Ty
pic
al v
erb
s
be,
bec
om
e, g
et,
turn
, g
o, g
row
, st
art
ou
t, t
urn
ou
t, e
nd
up
, k
eep
, st
ay,
rem
ain
, se
em,
app
ear,
loo
k,
sou
nd
,
smel
l, t
aste
, fe
el
be,
lo
ok
lik
e, t
urn
in
to;
con
cern
, la
st,
wei
gh
, co
st
be;
hav
e, b
elo
ng
to
be,
bec
om
e, e
qu
al,
add u
p t
o, p
lay
(th
e p
art
of)
, ac
t as
,
call
, m
ean
, d
efin
e, r
epre
sen
t, s
pel
l, e
xp
ress
, fo
rm,
giv
e,
con
stit
ute
, im
ply
, st
and
fo
r, s
ym
bo
lize
, re
aliz
e,
ind
icat
e, s
ign
ify
, b
eto
ken
be;
tak
e u
p,
foll
ow
, cr
oss
, sp
an,
acco
mp
any
, re
sem
ble
be;
ow
n,
incl
ud
e, i
nv
olv
e, c
onta
in,
com
pri
se,
con
sist
of;
pro
vid
e; e
xcl
ud
e, o
we,
des
erv
e, l
ack
Pro
bed
by
Wh
at?
Ho
w?
Wh
at…
lik
e?
N/A
N/A
Wh
ich
? W
ho
?
Wh
ich
/wh
o…
as?
(Wh
at?)
N/A
N/A
Ty
pe
Inte
nsi
ve
Cir
cum
stan
tial
1
Po
sses
siv
e2
Inte
nsi
ve
Cir
cum
stan
tial
3
Po
sses
siv
e4
Mo
de
Att
rib
uti
ve
‘a i
s an
attr
ibu
te o
f x
’
Iden
tify
ing
‘a i
s th
e
iden
tity
of
x’
24
Verbal processes (Halliday 1985: 129–30; Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 252–6) are
“processes of saying”. “Saying” stands here for “any kind of symbolic exchange of meaning”
(Halliday 1985: 129; Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 253). Verbal processes share
characteristics of material, relational and mental process types. The tenses available are
similar to those of material and relational clauses, and the ability to introduce quoted or
reported material, that is, the “ability to project”, resembles that of mental clauses (Halliday
and Matthiessen 2004: 255). The participants of a verbal process are the Sayer and the Target.
The Sayer does not have to be a conscious being but “can be anything that puts out a signal”,
such as the notice in The notice tells you to keep quiet (Halliday 1985: 129). Verbs like
praise, insult, slander, abuse and flatter have another participant to whom the verbal process
is directed at. This participant is the Target. An example would be I’m always praising you
where I is the Sayer and you is the Target.
Existential processes (Halliday 1985: 130–1; Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 256–9), as the
name suggests, express that “something exists or happens” (Halliday 1985: 130; Halliday and
Matthiessen 2004: 256). The participant in an existential process is called the Existent and it
can be any type of phenomenon, often an event or entity. Usually the process is expressed by
the verb be, but also exist and arise are used. An example is There’s a man at the door where
a man is an Existent. At the door is a circumstantial element and there is the existential
Subject, which has no function as a participant. Examples of each process type are provided
in Table 4 below.
Table 4. Process types and example sentences (based on Halliday 1985: 102–31; updates from
Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 179–259)
Process type Examples
Material Intransitive/Transitive The lion ran/The lion caught the tourist
Transformative/Creative The lion caught the tourist/Jim built that house
Behavioral Mary sighed deeply
Mental
Perception Jim saw Mike
Emotion Mary liked the gift
Cognition No one believed his story
Desideration She wants an ice cream
Verbal The notice tells you to keep quiet
Relational Attributive Peter has a piano
Identifying The piano is Peter’s
Existential There’s a man at the door
25
4.2.3 Other participants
The process types and the participants introduced above are the main semantic elements of
clauses. The participants are integrally involved in the process and they are directly related to
the verb. Halliday (1985: 131–7) introduces other participants, however, which are not
restricted to a particular process type and may be realized as prepositional phrases. They are
usually optional elements in the clause. These are called the Beneficiary and the Range. The
Beneficiary is the element “to whom or for whom the process is said to take place”, for
example to John in She sent her best wishes to John (Halliday 1985: 132). The Beneficiary
can be a participant in material, verbal and relational attributive processes (see Table 5). It
may be called the Recipient, Client or Receiver depending on the process type it appears in.
The Range “specifies the range or scope of the process” (Halliday 1985: 134). An example
would be German in She speaks German. The Range appears in material, behavioral, mental
and verbal processes. In material processes, it can be called the Scope, in behavioral processes
the Behaviour and in verbal processes the Verbiage.
Table 5. Direct and oblique participants (based on Halliday 1985: 102–37; updates from
Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 179–259, 260)
Process type Direct participants Beneficiary Range
Material Actor, Goal Recipient/Client Scope
Behavioral Behaver - Behaviour
Mental Senser, Phenomenon - Range
Verbal Sayer, Target Receiver Verbiage
Relational Carrier, Attribute
Identified, Identifier
Beneficiary
-
-
-
Existential Existent - -
+Attributor in attributive intensive clauses
+Assigner in identifying intensive clauses
In Halliday (1985), the Beneficiary and the Range are used as general classes to describe
subtypes that are process-specific. Halliday and Matthiessen (2004: 190–5, 237, 251, 255–6)
abandon this division and do not use the terms Beneficiary and Range but rather introduce the
process-specific participants without any overall categorizations. I will maintain Halliday’s
original distinction as I find it conceptually useful and as there seems to be some
indeterminacy in Halliday and Matthiessen’s usage from the start. In addition, there are
notable similarities between the different subtypes, a fact which is highlighted by maintaining
26
the original classification. Thus, in order to facilitate comprehension, different types of
additional participants are presented as a realization of the general classes of Beneficiary and
Range. However, what differs from the original classification by Halliday (1985) are the more
specific names of individual additional participants. Whereas Halliday (1985) names all other
instances of the Range, except for the Verbiage, as the Range, Halliday and Matthiessen
(2004) further specify these participants by naming them in material and behavioral processes
as the Scope and the Behaviour, respectively – a naming convention I have adopted in this
work. Thus, what is presented below follows Halliday’s original account but is updated with
the specific participant names as well as some other useful details and specifications from
Halliday and Matthiessen (2004).
The Beneficiary (Halliday 1985: 132–4) is usually human and is most often realized by a
personal pronoun. In a material process, the Beneficiary is either a Recipient, that is, the “one
that goods are given to”, or a Client for whom “services are done” (Halliday 1985: 132). Both
may occur with or without a preposition. If there is a preposition, it is to with the Recipient
and for with the Client. The Recipient typically appears when there are two direct
participants, i.e. in a material process, there should also be a Goal. Client can occur in clauses
with Goal, but also in clauses with Process and Range or the Process only. In a verbal process,
the Beneficiary is called the Receiver. It is “the one who is being addressed”, for example
Mary in John asked Mary a question (Halliday 1985: 133). The Receiver is usually a
conscious being, a collective or an institution and it is realized by a nominal group with or
without a preposition (Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 255). The Receiver usually appears
with verbs that express “a causative mental process”, such as convince, tell, explain and show,
but also promise, vow and undertake. Beneficiary can also participate in relational attributive
processes, although this is rare. An example is him in She made him a good wife.
The Range in a material process is called the Scope (Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 192,
194). It can be realized in two ways (Halliday 1985: 134–7). It may either be an entity which
specifies “the domain over which the process takes place”, as in Mary climbed the mountain
where the mountain is the Scope, or it may express “the process itself”, as in John and Mary
were playing tennis where tennis is the Scope (Halliday 1985: 134). In both these cases the
Range delimits the act and/or its extent. Usually there is only one direct participant, namely
the Actor, in material process clauses with Scope. That is, the Scope appears only in
intransitive clauses (Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 192, 194). It should be noted that the
27
Scope is never “directly involved in the process by bringing it about, being affected by it or
benefiting from it; but grammatically the Scope is treated as if it was a participant” (Halliday
and Matthiessen 2004: 194; cf. the Goal, which is affected by the process).
In a behavioral clause, e.g. in She sang a song, a song is the Behaviour (Halliday and
Matthiessen 2004: 251). In a mental process, on the other hand, the Phenomenon can
sometimes be interpreted as the Range. For example in I like it, the Phenomenon it can be
seen as “a specification of the domain of my liking” and therefore be interpreted as the Range
(Halliday 1985: 136). In a verbal process, the Range expresses “the class, quality or quantity
of what is said” (Halliday 1985: 137). It may either represent “the content of what is said” or
“the name of the saying” (Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 255–6). An example is He asked a
silly question where a silly question is the Range or, to be more precise, the Verbiage. It is
important to note that projections (quotes or reports) that follow verbal clauses should not be
interpreted as the Verbiage; instead, they are separate clauses following the verbal process
clause (Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 253, 255–6). It seems that this division has been
ignored in some previous studies and, therefore, projections have been incorrectly interpreted
as a participant.
In addition to what has been presented above, Halliday and Matthiessen (2004: 194–5, 237)
describe one additional participant in material processes and two oblique participants in
relational clauses. In a material process, an (resultative) Attribute expresses “the resultant
qualitative state of the Actor or Goal after the process has been completed”, e.g. They stripped
her clean of every bit of jewellery. In relational processes, there may appear an Assigner in
identifying (intensive) clauses and Attributor in attributive (intensive) clauses. The
Assigner/Attributor is “a third participant representing the entity assigning the relationship of
identity [or] attribution”, e.g. They made Mary the leader/happy in which they is an
Assigner/Attributor, respectively.
The roles of the Beneficiary and the Range, as stated above, are secondary in relation to the
other participant types. It is therefore likely that they will not appear in my data as frequently
as the other participant roles. While the Beneficiary is usually human, the Range is most often
not, which is why this participant role may not appear at all in relation to the presidential
candidates.
28
4.2.4 Circumstantial elements
Circumstantial elements form the third component of Halliday’s tripartite division of
transitivity. There are several different types of circumstantials (Halliday 1985: 137–44;
Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 259–80). They include Extent, Location, Manner, Cause,
Contingency, Accompaniment, Role, Matter and Angle.11 Circumstantial elements usually
appear as prepositional phrases in a clause. They are not bound to a specific process type and
are only related to the process indirectly. The preposition thus acts as intermediary,
determining the relationship between the nominal group and the Process. Halliday and
Matthiessen (2004: 263) describe circumstantials as “additional minor processes” through
which “a further entity” is introduced in the main process. Sometimes circumstances are also
realized as adverbial groups.
Each circumstantial can be probed by specific questions that help to identify the different
types (see Table 6). For example, the circumstantial of Matter answers the question what
about? and is realized as prepositional phrases such as about/concerning/with reference to X.
The Matter appears frequently with verbal and mental clauses. It is “the circumstantial
equivalent of the Verbiage” (Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 276).
The circumstances of Extent and Location form two corresponding categories that are realized
in relation to the dimensions of space and time. The Extent expresses either the spatial
dimension of distance or the temporal dimension of duration and frequency. These can be
measured in standard units such as meters or hours. The Location, on the other hand,
expresses a specific point in space or time.12 This specific point can either be absolute, as in in
Australia, or relative, as in here, now or a long time ago.
The circumstances of Manner and Cause answer questions like how? what with? and why?
who for?, respectively. The Manner is divided into the circumstances of Means, Quality,
Comparison and Degree and the Cause expresses Reason, Purpose or Behalf.13 The
Contingency answers the question why. It “specif[ies] an element on which the actualization
11
The categories of Contingency and Angle are not yet present in Halliday (1985). In addition, Halliday and
Matthiessen (2004) add one subcategory in the circumstantial of Manner and divide the circumstantial of Role
into two subtypes. 12
Also abstract space included in Location (Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 266–7). 13
The Degree is first introduced in Halliday and Matthiessen (2004: 267, 268–9).
29
Table 6. Circumstantial elements and example sentences (based on Halliday 1985: 137–42;
updates from Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 259–77)
Circumstantial element WH-form Examples
Extent
Spatial How far? How many? walk for seven miles
Temporal How long? How many times? stay for two hours
Location
Spatial Where? work in the kitchen
Temporal When? get up at six o’clock
Manner
Means How? What with? mend it with glue
Quality How? They sat there in complete
silence
Comparison What like? He signs his name differently
Degree How much? They all love her deeply
Cause
Reason Why? How? They left because of the
drought
Purpose What for? He has gone for lunch
Behalf Who for? put in a word on my behalf
Contingency
Condition Why? change clothes in case of food
stains
Default - in the absence of sth
Concession - in spite of sth
Accompaniment
Comitative1
Who/what with? Fred came with Tom
I came without my key
Additive2
Who/what else? Fred came as well as Tom
Fred came instead of Tom
Role
Guise What as? I come here as a friend
Product What into? He moulded the army into a
disciplined fighting force
Matter What about? I worry about her health
Angle
Source - According to a report, …
Viewpoint - It seems to me that…
1 Comitative includes two subcategories: the positive expressing that something is accompanied by
something/someone, and the negative expressing the reverse. 2 Additive includes two subcategories: the positive expressing that something appears in addition to something
else and the negative expressing that something appears as alternative to something else.
30
of the process depends” (Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 271). There are three subtypes of
Contingency, namely Condition, Concession and Default. The circumstantial of
Accompaniment expresses “joint participation”. When something is accompanied by
something/someone, the circumstance is called the Comitative. If something appears in
addition or as alternative to something, then it is the Additive. The Role includes two
subcategories, Guise and Product, which express the meanings of “be” and “become”
circumstantially (Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 274). The Guise is realized by prepositional
phrases with as, by way of and in the role/shape/guise/form of, while the Product is expressed
by the preposition into. The last type of circumstantial is called the Angle (Halliday and
Matthiessen 2004: 276–7). The Angle is divided into the circumstances of Source and
Viewpoint. The Source is similar to the Sayer in a verbal clause, and it expresses the source of
information, that is, the content of the clause “as said by X”. The Viewpoint, on the other
hand, has similarities with the Senser of a mental process, and it expresses the content of the
clause “as X thinks”.
It is evident that not all types of circumstances are relevant for my study. However, some may
become ideologically important as they may be used to background the presidential
candidates and to portray them indirectly in relation to a given action or event.
31
5 Data, methods and research questions
5.1 Data
Two New York-based newspapers were chosen for the analysis of media discourse, namely
The New York Post (NYP) and The New York Times (NYT). NYT is a quality newspaper
which enjoys a daily circulation of almost 1.1 million readers, while NYP is a tabloid daily of
some 700,000 readers. NYT has supported the Democratic Party at several elections and
endorsed Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign. NYP, on the other hand,
supported John McCain in the 2008 elections, having previously supported George W. Bush.
However, I will not pay specific attention to the differing political views of the newspapers
and their support for different candidates as such in my analysis. Instead, my focus is on how
these endorsements are expressed in the language of the editorials and used in order to
influence the public.
The data was gathered from the websites of NYP and NYT in January 2009. The newspaper
archives were open for the public so I was able to go through each editorial individually. The
defining factor in choosing an editorial was that it had to deal with the presidential elections
and/or include the names of Barack Obama and/or John McCain. There were instances when
the candidates were mentioned in an editorial without actually talking about the elections.
Sometimes it was clear that this was done in order to defame the candidate. There were also
times that the presidential candidates were being maligned via their vice-presidential
candidates. Also these types of texts were included in the data as they either included the
names of the candidate(s) or discussed the elections.
Eight editorials of NYT were included in the analysis even though the editorials were not
unsigned, as is typically the case. These were either called “Editorial Observer” or “Editorial
Notebook” and were signed by the writer of the text. They were accepted in the analysis as
they appeared under the Editorials section in the NYT website. In addition, two editorials
named “Editorial ǀ In Office” were included in the data, despite a naming convention that
differed from the majority of the editorials (named simply “Editorial”). Also these two texts
appeared under the Editorials section in the NYT website.
32
The data consists of editorials from June 3, 2008 onwards, which was the date when Hillary
Clinton withdrew from the presidential candidacy of the Democratic Party. Thus, from June 3
onwards, there were only two candidates running for office: John McCain and Barack Obama
(and their respective candidates for vice presidents). Altogether 158 editorials, 78 from NYP
and 80 from NYT, matched the criteria for inclusion in the data. The material consists of
some 29,000 words for NYP and approximately 46,000 words for NYT.
5.2 Methodology
I base my analysis on two theoretical constructs, namely the ideological square by van Dijk
(1998) and transitivity structure by Halliday (1985, Halliday and Matthiessen 2004). The two
notions were introduced in the theoretical discussion above (see chapters 3 and 4). Below I
describe how these notions are used in this work.
5.2.1 Ideological analysis
For the ideological analysis, an analysis matrix based on van Dijk’s (1998) ideological square
was created, which recorded the ideological orientation of the editorials. The ideological
orientation, i.e. the editorials’ perceived attitude toward each candidate, was registered for
both candidates in each editorial. The editorials were evaluated to be either positive, negative
or something in between, i.e. presenting both positive and negative points about a candidate
and his actions/opinions.
In some cases, it was impossible to define the stance of the editorial. This usually happened
with editorials that only mentioned the candidate very briefly. For instance, in the following
extract, which is taken from NYP and which discusses the result of the primaries and Mrs.
Clinton’s role in the Democratic campaign, John McCain is only referred to in passing:
(1) The primary electorate has had its say – and now it’s up to the two parties’
nominating conventions to ratify those outcomes: John McCain for the Republicans
and Barack Obama for the Democrats. (NYP, June 4, “Hillary’s historic run”)
33
In this example, and in the whole text, John McCain is mentioned only once: in the opening
sentence of the editorial. No further reference is made to the Republican presidential
candidate. As there is very little context here, it was impossible to define the stance of the
editorial regarding Mr. McCain. Therefore, this and other similar instances were labeled
“unclassifiable” and were left out from the ideological analysis. In addition, a separate
category was created for those editorials that did not mention a candidate at all.
5.2.2 Transitivity analysis
In the transitivity analysis, six editorials from each newspaper were chosen for further
analysis. These were selected based on the ideological analysis so that one editorial that was
positive, one that was negative and one that was divided were selected from both newspapers
for each candidate. The idea was to be able to observe the occurrence of participant roles in
different kinds of editorials. Since the previous research has found that participant roles can
be used ideologically to convey attitudinal information, it was anticipated that there would be
differences between the different types of editorials. Accordingly, it was hypothesized that if
the editorials differed ideologically from each other (and if the newspapers treated the
presidential candidates differently in their editorials) this would show in the participant roles
used regarding each presidential candidate. The editorials chosen for the transitivity analysis
include the following twelve texts:
Table 7. Editorials chosen for the transitivity analysis
No. NYP editorials No. NYT editorials
Self Positive 1 Barack’s Iraq trip 7 Talking sense on Iraq
Negative 2 McCain’s oil wrong 8 New and not improved
Divided 3 An unenlightening night 9 Public funding on the ropes
Other Positive 4 Today’s the day 10 The spirit of public service
Negative 5 Obama, adrift 11 There he goes again
Divided 6 All pro-drilling now? 12 John McCain’s challenge
NB: NYP and NYT endorsed a different candidate in the 2008 presidential elections. Therefore, in NYP, the Self
refers to McCain and the Other to Obama. In NYT, the Self is Obama and the Other is McCain.
The transitivity analysis, based on Halliday’s (1985; Halliday and Matthiessen 2004) concept
of transitivity, was thus designed to capture the differences that could be anticipated from the
34
ideological analysis. In order to achieve systematic results, all sentences were entered into an
analysis matrix based on Halliday’s classification of processes and participants. The results
were interpreted in the context of the specific newspapers but also in comparison with the
other newspaper.
5.3 Aims
The aim of this research is to study the persuasion strategies of The New York Post (NYP) and
The New York Times (NYT). Both newspapers endorsed a different candidate in the United
States’ presidential elections in 2008. This kind of competitive setting is ideal for persuasion
and ideological opinion management, as suggested above.
I will address the following questions in my analysis:
1. How are the two presidential candidates portrayed in the editorials as analyzed
through the ideological square by van Dijk?
2. What participant roles are assigned to each presidential candidate?
3. Are there any similarities or differences between the two newspapers in relation to Us
versus Them presentation, transitivity structure and/or participant roles?
It is likely that the newspapers’ support for specific candidates shows in the position that they
take in relation to each presidential candidate. In addition, it is possible that the varying
positions are coded differently in the language – specifically as the style of NYP and NYT
varies considerably. I will thus pay attention to how the strategies of NYP and NYT vary in
relation to their own and the opposing candidate as well as analyze whether the opposition
between the two candidates shows in the semantic role strategies chosen by the newspapers. I
will also discuss the possible differences between the two newspapers.
35
6 Results
In this chapter, I will present the results of the two analytic stages, i.e. the ideological and
transitivity analyses. However, a few general remarks concerning the editorials are due before
going into the actual analyses.
6.1 General remarks on the editorials
The stylistic differences between the two newspapers were obvious when considering the
headlines and the topics discussed by the newspapers. First, the headlines of the two
newspapers varied in their reference to the two candidates (see Appendixes for further
information). The tendency seems to be that the opposing candidate is given preference in the
headlines. This relates to the amount of exposure in the editorials in general. In addition,
while NYT used formal forms of address (Mr. Obama, Senator McCain) or full names (John
McCain) when referring to the candidates, NYP chose to address the candidates more
informally (Obama, McCain and, in the case of Barack Obama, even Barack and Bam).
Richardson (2007: 97) attributes these kinds of choices to the newspaper’s style policy.
According to van Dijk (1998: 271), headlines can be used to convey information according to
the principles of the ideological square. Thus, NYP’s strategy of using nicknames or first
name only to refer to the candidates can be interpreted here as a sign of disrespect, especially
since only one of the candidates was addressed in such a way.
Table 8. Main topics by the two newspapers
NYP No. of
editorials NYT
No. of
editorials
Economy/financial crisis 11 Economy/financial crisis 11
Acorn 8 Campaign financing and lobbyists 9
Shady
connections/acquaintances
7 Attack ads and denigrating
campaign rhetoric
8
National security 7 Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran 8
Obama’s changing political
views
5 Sarah Palin 6
Presidential debates 4 Energy issues 4
Bush’s impeachment 3 Presidential debates 3
36
The topics of the two newspapers also varied. In 2008, when the financial crisis hit the US,
both newspapers paid considerable attention to economic issues (see Table 8). In effect, the
economy was the most frequent topic in both NYP’s and NYT’s editorials. Both newspapers
also discussed, for instance, the presidential debates and foreign policy issues related to
Afghanistan and Iraq. In general, however, NYP can be described as people-oriented and
NYT as issue-oriented. NYP presented several “case studies” in its editorials that discussed
individual people, such as Tony Rezko, William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, and their links
to the presidential candidates. NYT, on the other hand, concentrated on discussing topical
issues and being the “moral voice” on matters concerning campaign financing, attack ads and
campaign rhetoric.
6.2 Ideological analysis
This section discusses the results of the ideological analysis, based on van Dijk’s concept of
the ideological square (1998). First, the results of the quantitative analysis will be presented,
followed by examples in section 6.2.2.
6.2.1 Quantitative analysis
The results of the ideological analysis are presented in Table 9. The table shows the division
of editorials into positive, negative and divided categories. However, I will first comment on
the appearance of the presidential candidates in the totality of all editorials (see Appendix 3
for full details).
The quantitative analysis shows that the great majority of the editorials in NYT refer to John
McCain and Barack Obama in one way or another (95.0% and 86.3%, respectively). NYP,
instead, refers to McCain in only half of its editorials (55.1%), while mentioning Obama in
almost every editorial analyzed (93.6%). This means that a considerable number of NYP
editorials – in fact, almost half of all editorials under investigation (44.9%) – do not mention
the newspaper’s own candidate, McCain, at all. The result is somewhat surprising as it would
arguably work in favor of the endorsed candidate to get as much visibility as possible during
37
the election campaign. Still, NYP chooses to background McCain in its editorials and discuss
the opponent extensively. NYT, by contrast, seems to give a more balanced coverage of both
candidates. While it discusses the opponent slightly more often than the newspaper’s own
candidate, the difference is not as great as in NYP. It therefore seems that NYT does not
differentiate between the endorsed candidate and the opponent when choosing on which
topics to write about.
When the different types of editorials (positive, negative and divided) are compared, the
differences between the two newspapers become even more evident (see Table 9). While
NYT discusses Obama (the Self) in a favorable light in 41.7% of its editorials and takes a
negative or critical stance in 58.3% of the editorials, NYP remains surprisingly positive in its
approach to Mr. McCain: only 21.1% of NYP editorials discuss the candidate negatively or
dividedly. This means that, from those editorials that actually mention McCain, over three
quarters (78.9%) are positive toward the Republican candidate. This result is in strong
accordance with van Dijk’s principle of positive self-presentation. Thus, when the
newspaper’s own candidate is actually mentioned in the editorial pages, NYP very rarely uses
a negative tone (5.3% of the editorials written about McCain).
Table 9. Ideological orientation toward the Self and the Other in NYP and NYT
No. of
editorials (%)
Self Other
Pos Neg Div Pos Neg Div
NYP 30
(78.9)
2
(5.3)
6
(15.8)
2
(2.9)
49
(70.0)
19
(27.1)
NYT 25
(41.7)
11
(18.3)
24
(40.0)
6
(8.1)
40
(54.1)
28
(37.8)
NB: For NYP, the Self is McCain and the Other is Obama. For NYT, it is vice versa.
The differences are not as great when the opposing candidate is in question, but the other-
presentation is still more negative in NYP than in NYT. Thus, while both newspapers mainly
write negatively or dividedly about the opponent (97.1% and 91.9% for NYP and NYT,
respectively), NYP’s representation is more focused toward the negative. In fact, over two
thirds of NYP editorials treat the opponent exclusively negatively. Once again, it seems that
NYP applies van Dijk’s principles to a more extreme extent. In addition, both newspapers
avoid discussing the opponent positively. This is understandable since emphasizing negative
aspects of the opponent works in favor of the endorsed candidate.
38
On the whole, this analysis suggests that both NYP and NYT comply with van Dijk’s model
of the ideological square but NYP applies the principles more explicitly and to a greater
extent. It not only portrays its own candidate extremely positively but also presents the
opponent very negatively by discussing him extensively and mainly in an unfavorable light.
NYT, on the other hand, appears to be more moderate toward the candidates, whether the
newspaper’s own candidate or the opponent is in question.
6.2.2 Persuasive strategies used in the editorials
Both NYP and NYT employ the strategies of positive self-presentation and negative other-
presentation (van Dijk 1998) in their editorials, as indicated by the quantitative analysis
above. For instance, NYP criticized Obama on hosting a fundraising event for rich supporters
in a lavish setting while the nation was struggling the financial crisis. In example 2, Obama is
portrayed as a greedy and uncaring candidate who avoids his responsibilities.
(2) Democratic nominee Barack Obama last week gave the country a lesson in
contrasts that he just might wish he could take back.
That is, if it weren’t for the cool millions he pocketed in the meantime.
As Wall Street’s crisis set the nation on edge, Obama on Tuesday was off to
hobnob with “investors” of a different sort - the Hollywood power-brokers who
give big-time to his campaign.
[…]
Suffice it to say that Obama and his Hollywood pals weren’t going to let a little
financial crisis, um, rain on their parade. (NYP, September 21, “A feast amid the
crisis”)
In the editorial, Obama is accused of forgetting the American people who have faced disaster
due to the economic situation. Similarly, McCain was presented in a negative light by NYT
when discussing his failed interpretation on the financial crisis. According to NYT, McCain’s
evaluation of the economy as “fundamentally sound” was completely misguided when the
investment bank Lehman Brothers had just went bankrupt and tens of thousands of jobs had
been lost, among other things.
(3) On Tuesday, he clarified his remarks. The clarification was far more worrisome
than his initial comments.
39
He said that by calling the economy fundamentally sound, what he really meant
was that American workers are the best in the world. In the best Karl Rovian
fashion, he implied that if you dispute his statement about the economy’s firm
foundation, you are, in effect, insulting American workers. “I believe in American
workers, and someone who disagrees with that — it’s fine,” he told NBC’s Matt
Lauer.
[…]
In clarifying his comments, Mr. McCain lavished praise on workers, but ignored
their problems. That is the real insult. (NYT, September 17, “Mr. McCain and the
economy”)
In addition to negative other-presentation, both newspapers tried to portray the Self positively.
In examples 4 and 5, NYP and NYT use similar strategies when first presenting both
candidates’ opinions on a particular issue and then openly endorsing their own candidate’s
views. Example 4 is from NYT and discusses the home mortgage crisis in the US. Example 5
is from NYP and deals with the Russo-Georgian war, the armed conflict between Georgia and
Russia in the August of 2008.
(4) Both John McCain and Barack Obama have recognized that this crisis won’t be
solved until a way is found to keep many more Americans in their homes.
Senator McCain’s plan — to buy troubled mortgages from banks at full value
and replace them with mortgages at the house’s lower market price — may sound
humane, but it is an unjustifiable waste of taxpayer money. It doesn’t require the
lender to accept any loss before the government buys up a bad loan.
Senator Obama has a better idea. Rather than relying solely on the banks to do
what is right and needed, he supports legislation that would allow bankruptcy
judges to modify mortgages for bankrupt borrowers. That makes far more sense.
(NYT, October 22, “Only half a bailout”)
(5) The phone may not have rung at 3 a.m., but when word came of Russia’s brutal
invasion of neighboring Georgia, one of the two presidential candidates
instinctively understood the adventure’s long-range implications.
And one did not.
Indeed, the crisis in the Caucasus is giving voters real insight into how John
McCain and Barack Obama might handle a foreign-policy emergency.
In his first public reaction, Obama merely called on “Georgia and Russia to
show restraint” - a reflexive exercise in what Sen. Joe Lieberman rightly labeled
“moral neutrality.”
Then Obama called for a UN Security Council resolution condemning Russia -
apparently unaware that Moscow, a permanent Security Council member, can veto
any such resolution.
He also suggested sending an international force under “an appropriate UN
mandate” to South Ossetia. (See above, Security Council veto.)
Obama’s initial reaction was that only Georgia’s territorial sovereignty was at
stake - and that the way to resolve that issue was to negotiate.
40
But McCain immediately understood that the real issue wasn’t just a Georgian
territory violation, but Vladimir Putin’s premeditated effort to let Eastern Europe
know that Russia intends thoroughly to dominate what it terms its “near abroad.”
[…]
His firm line from the start - calling on Russia to be booted from the G-8 and for
NATO to immediately admit Georgia - was a model of what the entire Western
response should have been. (NYP, August 15, “The Georgia test”)
It should be noted that the two strategies of positive self-presentation and negative other-
presentation often operated in the same editorial to construct an overall picture that was
positive toward the newspaper’s own candidate and negative toward the opponent. This
happened also in the examples above.
It was found in the ideological analysis that often the candidates themselves were not praised
or criticized directly but, instead, they were being evaluated through other people. For
example, NYP used the strategy of “defaming through others” in several of its editorials. This
strategy consisted of trying to present the opposing candidate negatively by referring to his
connections to suspicious figures. In example 6, Barack Obama is portrayed as having several
acquaintances of questionable character.
(6) If people are best judged by the company they keep, then Barack Obama has some
explaining to do.
There’s his long-term relationships with extremist preachers like Jeremiah
Wright and Michael Pfleger. And his association with ‘60s radical terrorist William
Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.
And then there’s his links with Tony Rezko - the Chicago political power broker
who faces up to 20 years in prison after his conviction last week on 16 counts of
wire fraud, mail fraud, money-laundering and soliciting bribes.
[…]
All in all, Obama apparently was one of the few people in Chicago who was
blind to the fact that Tony Rezko was a key political-influence peddler.
Just as he was about the only person in Trinity United Church who missed every
one of Jeremiah Wright’s regular militant anti-American sermons. (NYP, June 8,
“Barack’s bad buds”)
As can be seen, NYP’s attack against Obama’s character is harsh. Even the headline
“Barack’s bad buds” addresses Obama, guaranteeing that no one will miss the message NYP
wants to convey. The alliteration, which is a typical tabloid headline feature (van Dijk 1991:
116), is built around Obama’s first name, further lessening his value in the eyes of the reader.
41
NYT based its strategy more often on criticizing than defaming the candidates. McCain was
mainly criticized through Sarah Palin, as is the case with example 7. The extract is taken from
an editorial discussing the previous night’s vice-presidential debate.
(7) Ms. Palin’s primary tactic was simply to repeat the same thing over and over: John
McCain is a maverick. So is she. To stay on that course, she had to indulge in some
wildly circular logic: America does not want another Washington insider. They
want Mr. McCain (who has been in Congress for nearly 26 years). Ms. Palin
condemned Wall Street greed and said she and Mr. McCain would “demand” strict
oversight. In virtually the next breath, she said government should “get out of the
way” of American business.
In the end, the debate did not change the essential truth of Ms. Palin’s
candidacy: Mr. McCain made a wildly irresponsible choice that shattered the image
he created for himself as the honest, seasoned, experienced man of principle and
judgment. It was either an act of incredible cynicism or appallingly bad judgment.
(NYT, October 3, “The vice-presidential debate”)
Example 7 demonstrates how NYT is openly opposed to Sarah Palin’s choice for a running
mate. However, there is also a softening tone to the editorial when NYT describes the good
characteristics John McCain used to have (in the eyes of the public as well as the newspaper
itself).
The candidates, however, were also praised through others in the editorials. NYP, for
example, praised Sarah Palin for her anti-corruption fight, thus also approving John McCain.
(8) Stevens embodies the “culture of corruption” that triggered the GOP’s [the
Republicans’] massive losses in the 2006 elections - a culture McCain and Palin
have spent a lot of time fighting.
Palin, in particular, mounted an anti-corruption campaign against Stevens’ close
ally, former Gov. Frank Murkowski, in the 2006 GOP gubernatorial primary.
Many of those given to mocking Palin’s alleged shortcomings - Democrats,
Republicans and the media - would be hard-pressed to demonstrate such integrity in
their own lives and careers. (NYP, October 29, “Sarah stood tall”)
NYT, on the other hand, used the strategy of “praising through others” when writing about
Michelle Obama and her speech at the Democratic national convention in Denver.
(9) On Monday night and throughout Tuesday’s series of women’s events, Mrs. Obama
displayed the kind of grace and female strength that political consultants love and
many Americans yearn for in a first lady. (NYT, August 27, “On politics, women
and generational anxiety”)
42
Note, however, that the editorial does not openly express its own position, but prefers to refer
to the opinions of “consultants” and “many Americans”, which makes the message more
vague, especially since the editorial continues by reporting the negative feelings of two
women in the audience.
Both NYP and NYT used a strategy where a candidate was described having been wronged
by the opposing candidate, party or its representative. For example, NYT disapproved of John
McCain and his use of lowdown rhetoric during the election campaign, thus portraying
Obama as a victim of a denigration campaign.
(10) In recent weeks, Mr. McCain has been waving the flag of fear (Senator Barack
Obama wants to “lose” in Iraq), and issuing attacks that are sophomoric (suggesting
that Mr. Obama is a socialist) and false (the presumptive Democratic nominee
turned his back on wounded soldiers).
Mr. McCain used to pride himself on being above this ugly brand of politics,
which killed his own 2000 presidential bid. But he clearly tossed his inhibitions
aside earlier this month when he put day-to-day management of his campaign in the
hands of one acolyte of Mr. Rove and gave top positions to two others. (NYT, July
30, “Low-road express”)
The candidates were also portrayed through their parties, indexing the two irreversibly
together. NYP, for example, used a strategy where it first described the errors made by the
Democratic party or its members and then referred to Obama as the one who would continue
similar practices if elected. This was done in a way that did not always seem just, since not all
the actions or opinions reported could be said to have reflected Obama’s views
straightforwardly. Similarly, NYT criticized John McCain through the actions of President
Bush and Sarah Palin.
6.2.3 The Acorn story
There was a noticeable difference between NYP and NYT in discussing one issue, namely a
suspected voting fraud through invalid registration forms, and the following FBI investigation
concerning an organization called Acorn, which had worked for registering low-income
people as voters in the elections. NYP wrote about the organization in altogether 8 editorials.
It linked Obama with the organization early on in the campaign and as the suspected voter
fraud scandal started to expand, the linkage was maintained by referring to Obama in later
43
editorials. Example 11 is taken from the beginning of an editorial toward the end of the
campaign.
(11) The folks over at ACORN - Barack Obama’s favorite “community organizers” -
now admit that more than 30 percent of the 1.3 million voter-registration forms they
submitted this year were rejected by election officials nationwide. (NYP, October
25, “A few bad apples?”)
In comparison, NYT referred to the incident only once (October 17, “The Acorn story”). The
newspaper never mentioned Obama, but referred to McCain several times when wondering
what McCain was talking about when referring to “one of the greatest frauds in voter history”.
The newspaper portrayed the event as an unfortunate incident in the respectable
organization’s efforts to help poor people and minorities to get their vote, and accused the
McCain campaign of “manufactured fury”. In addition, it tried to put the blame on the
Republicans for not supporting the registration of the “one-third of eligible voters” who were
not registered.
Thus, the two newspapers’ views were almost complete opposites of each other. The striking
difference in the positions of the newspapers was also reflected in their reference to the
presidential candidates. It could be argued that NYT’s decision to foreground McCain when
reporting the event was a reaction to NYP’s extensive coverage of the issue, especially since
Obama had been repeatedly mentioned negatively in the NYP editorials.
6.3 Transitivity analysis
I will now turn to discuss the results of the transitivity analysis. The twelve editorials under
investigation will be addressed individually in the order presented above. The editorials of
NYP will be addressed first, followed by the six editorials from NYT.
44
6.3.1 The New York Post on McCain (Self)
Text 1 (McCain Pos)
In July 19 (Barack’s Iraq trip), NYP wrote about one of the United States’ biggest foreign
policy challenges at the time, namely Iraq. The editorial is especially interesting since the
starting point for writing the text has been Mr. Obama’s visit to Iraq during the election
campaign. The editorial is titled “Barack’s Iraq trip”, which sets expectations for the reader to
be about Obama’s past, ongoing or future visit to the front. However, what actually follows is
a story about how McCain, with his military experience, has predicted the result of the troop
surge ordered by President Bush, while Obama and other Democrats have failed to evaluate
the situation correctly in the first place.
In the text, McCain is firmly linked to President Bush and his policies. The Republican
candidate is presented as having supported President Bush’s troop surge since the beginning.
McCain mainly appears as a Sayer in the editorial and he is mostly directly quoted:14
(12) ǀǀǀ “We have succeeded in Iraq - not ‘we are succeeding’ - we have succeeded in
Iraq,” ǀǀ said McCain. ǀǀǀ
It is noteworthy that while, in the editorial, McCain is granted several chances of expressing
his views and opinions about Iraq, Obama is given none. There are no quotes from Obama,
but several from McCain. McCain thus appears as a well-informed and knowledgeable
candidate compared to Obama, and this is emphasized by NYP’s choice of quoted material. In
addition to verbal processes, McCain is presented as an Actor in a material process. Thus, he
not only verbalizes what should be done but also acts himself:
(13a) ǀǀǀ Back when Gen. David Petraeus and President Bush announced plans for the
surge, ǀǀ McCain went way out on a limb ǀǀ and endorsed it ǀǀ - indeed, he’d long
been pushing for precisely such a strategy. ǀǀǀ
(13b) ǀǀǀ But McCain, a combat veteran [[who’s made repeated trips to the front]], knew
otherwise. ǀǀǀ
14
The following system of notation has been used in the examples:
ǀǀǀ = sentence boundary, ǀǀ = clause boundary, [[…]] = embedded element;
Bold = process, Underline = participants, Italicization = circumstantial elements
45
Here, McCain is given an active role by assigning him to the role of the Actor. As an Actor,
he is shown to embrace President Bush’s policies in Iraq and, in fact, to have been promoting
similar strategies long before the recent successes at the front. Thus, it is explicitly stated that
he has been to the front, in comparison to Obama who has not, and it is emphasized that he
has tirelessly demanded the kind of military strategy that President Bush eventually
implemented.
In contrast to McCain, Obama is presented in the editorial as ill-advised and showing poor
judgment. He does not appear in material process clauses and, thus, is not an active
participant (Actor) in the events, except indirectly when “his aides” are presented as trying to
hide evidence that would reveal his ignorance:
(14) ǀǀǀ As for Obama, until recently he was still insisting ǀǀ that the surge would fail. ǀǀǀ
Now he knows otherwise - ǀǀ which is [[why his aides moved quickly ǀǀ to purge all
signs of his earlier opposition from his campaign Web site]]. ǀǀǀ
In example 14, Obama thus appears indirectly as an Actor because his aides are presented as
active participants in a material process. The other two processes in bold are verbal and
mental ones and, in these clauses, Obama appears as a Sayer and Senser. He is presented
saying things that later prove wrong and becoming aware of something important that should
have been learned a long time ago. As can be seen, it is not the participant roles alone that
reveal this information about Obama but, rather, other elements in the clauses, such as time
adverbials that indicate the order of events, contribute to the negative interpretation. These are
the main strategies through which the editorial builds Obama’s role in this text. Rather than
acting (material processes), saying (verbal processes) or thinking (mental processes) far-
sightedly, Obama says or thinks misguided thoughts. Toward the end of the editorial, Obama
is again assigned the role of the Senser when he is suggested to benefit from his visit to Iraq
because he may “learn” and “realize” some important aspects about warfare:
(15) ǀǀǀ So it’s a good thing [[that Sen. Obama is headed for Iraq and Afghanistan]]. ǀǀǀ
He’ll probably learn something important [[about how the war is being
conducted]]. ǀǀǀ Maybe he’ll even come to realize ǀǀ that this hard-won success is too
fragile [[to be put at risk by a too-hasty retreat]]. ǀǀǀ Something John McCain also
has understood all along. ǀǀǀ
46
Here, Obama is presented as being capable of learning and understanding some essential
truths about Iraq, but through the use of future tense, it is clearly established that this
knowledge is weak. Obama is thus portrayed as a novice compared to McCain, who has
known these things “all along”.
The image created by the editorial emphasizes McCain’s active role as a promoter of
President Bush’s plans. McCain is seen as an intelligent, far-sighted Sayer and Senser, but
also a determined Actor with experience. Obama, on the other hand, is portrayed as an ill-
advised Sayer or Senser, and once (indirectly) as the Actor trying to hide the truth.
Text 2 (McCain Neg)
In the editorial from June 14 (McCain’s oil wrong), McCain is criticized for his populist
rhetoric and his views on oil drilling. NYP argues that McCain’s rhetoric is misguided and
that his own actions have complicated the crisis in the energy market. McCain is presented as
an Actor who has engaged in negatively evaluated activities (using over-the-top rhetoric,
blocking exploration and drilling of oil):
(16a) ǀǀǀ You’d think ǀǀ so, ǀǀ from the over-the-top rhetoric [[McCain used on Thursday
night at Federal Hall, ǀǀ ripping into the nation’s oil companies]]. ǀǀǀ
(16b) ǀǀǀ And McCain and his Greeniac buddies in Congress are in no small way
responsible for that. ǀǀǀ They’ve blocked exploration and drilling offshore and in
any part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - likely repositories of some 100
billion barrels of oil and hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. ǀǀǀ
Thus, McCain is seen as someone who has made bad decisions both in Congress and in
debate arenas. He is assigned partial responsibility over the rising energy prices and is
criticized by NYP for not doing enough to solve the situation. Through the material process
clauses, McCain comes across as responsible for the crisis and is therefore condemned by
NYP. Note that in 16a the nominal group over-the-top rhetoric and especially the premodifier
over-the-top contributes to the negative interpretation of the process. Thus, here lexical
choices convey ideological attitudes. However, McCain is also a Sayer and Senser in this
editorial. The verbal and mental clauses express anger and wants, which are directly quoted
by NYP:
47
(17a) ǀǀǀ “I am very angry, frankly, at the oil companies,” ǀǀ said the presumptive GOP
presidential nominee. ǀǀǀ
(17b) ǀǀǀ McCain also wants a “thorough and complete investigation of [oil] speculators.”
ǀǀǀ
As in the editorial analyzed above, here McCain is directly quoted. But while the effect of
quoting was intended very positive in the first text, here the quotes are used as a way of
emphasizing the absurdity of McCain’s views. In this editorial, both McCain’s doings as well
as his sayings are condemned as incorrect. Accordingly, McCain is referred to in a relational
clause in which he is presented as a Carrier to whom responsibility is assigned and to whom
negative evaluation about his opinions is attached:
(18a) ǀǀǀ And McCain and his Greeniac buddies in Congress are in no small way
responsible for that. ǀǀǀ
(18b) ǀǀǀ But his demagoguery on the energy issue is truly disappointing. ǀǀǀ
As can be seen from these examples, NYP explicitly condemns McCain. Example 18b,
especially, shows the extent of disappointment by NYP. Once again, lexical choices
(Greeniac buddies, his demagoguery) play a part in the transmission of ideology. The overall
picture that emerges from the editorial thus portrays McCain as acting incoherently and
saying things that are not well thought out. McCain is criticized both through what he does
and what he says as well as how he thinks.
Text 3 (McCain Div)
In October 8 (An unenlightening night), NYP wrote about the previous night’s presidential
debate, which was the second one in the series of three debates. Both candidates are
mentioned in the text and both performances are analyzed and evaluated by NYP. The
editorial consists of two parts. The first part deals with economy and the second part discusses
national security. According to NYP, in economic issues, both candidates failed at least
partially by being vague and ambiguous. In issues concerning foreign policy and national
defense, McCain is judged to have done a better job, while Obama is criticized.
In the first half of the text, NYP emphasizes the similarities between the two candidates. For
example, they are portrayed as Actors and Sayers who are having difficulties:
48
Material:
(19a) ǀǀǀ In last night’s debate, a substantively unserious affair, Sens. John McCain and
Barack Obama struggled with the two chief challenges [[facing this nation]]: how
to keep America’s economy afloat, and its enemies at bay. ǀǀǀ
Verbal:
(19b) ǀǀǀ Both Obama and McCain essentially offered multiple chickens for every pot, at a
time [[when the economy demands serious leadership - and painful choices]]. ǀǀǀ
(19c) ǀǀǀ McCain, with a straight face, proposed a new bailout for homeowners [[facing
mortgage woes]], ǀǀ where the Treasury “would buy up bad home loan mortgages,”
ǀǀ pare down the principal (with the feds eating the loss) - ǀǀ and, presto: Folks would
instantly be able to stay in their homes. ǀǀǀ
Here, both presidential candidates are presented as insecure and contradictory in their
statements. In 19a, the semantics of the verb contributes significantly to the interpretation of
the material process as negative toward the presidential candidates. Note also that the two
candidates are referred to jointly and their performances are thus linked to each other. By
doing this, NYP is able to be critical toward its own candidate without risking an unfavorable
comparison to the opposing candidate. The candidates also appear in a relational process as
Carriers:
(20) ǀǀǀ Rights come with responsibilities, of course, ǀǀ and both McCain and Obama are
responsible [[for explaining how much their outlandish proposals would cost, ǀǀ and
who would pay for them]]. ǀǀǀ
Here, NYP emphasizes the role of the presidential candidates as high-powered politicians
who must justify their policy suggestions to the public. The two candidates are thus demanded
explanations and their opinions, which have been expressed in previous verbal clauses, are
questioned for further validation. Through the use of a relational clause, McCain and Obama
are assigned an Attribute that expresses responsibility. Thus, what is emphasized in the first
half of the editorial is shared responsibility. McCain and Obama are presented as joint Actors
and Sayers who face similar challenges and obstacles during the debate.
In addition to the participant roles mentioned above, McCain and Obama also appear as
Receivers of a verbal message:
49
(21) ǀǀǀ Brokaw asked each candidate ǀǀ to describe a doctrine for military intervention in
humanitarian crises [[that don’t directly affect US national interests]]. ǀǀǀ
This verbal clause functions in the text as a transitional element that directs the discussion
from one theme to another, that is, from economic issues to foreign policy. While the first part
of the editorial mainly addresses the two candidates together, the second part emphasizes the
differences between the candidates. Thus, on foreign policy issues, McCain is positively
evaluated. He is portrayed as a wise and knowledgeable Behaver, Sayer and Senser, as the
following examples demonstrate:
(22a) ǀǀǀ McCain showed a well-honed understanding of the subtleties of power
projection. ǀǀǀ Washington’s use of military force “has to be tempered” by a
recognition of “our ability to beneficially affect the situation,” ǀǀ he said. ǀǀǀ
(22b) ǀǀǀ Thus, he implied, ǀǀ he supported the Iraq surge ǀǀ because he thought (correctly,
as it turned out) ǀǀ that it would have a beneficial impact - ǀǀ but opposed President
Reagan’s deployment of Marines to Lebanon ǀǀ because he felt ǀǀ it would not ǀǀ (also
correctly). ǀǀǀ
Here, McCain is depicted as an intelligent Behaver (showed), well-informed Sayer (said,
implied) and far-sighted Senser (supported, etc.). In 22b, the first clause has been interpreted
as a verbal process, while other clauses (in bold) have been analyzed as mental ones. Note
that the sense of approval in this example has been achieved through the use of the adverb
correctly, which is a modal adjunct of evaluation (Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 82).
Whereas McCain appears as the well-informed candidate on national defense, Obama is
assigned incompetence (out of his depth) and is presented as misguided Sayer:
(23a) ǀǀǀ Obama again seemed out of his depth. ǀǀǀ
(23b) ǀǀǀ And Obama once more revealed some confused thinking about America’s
evolving relationship with Pakistan - a nuclear-armed ally. ǀǀǀ
(23c) ǀǀǀ Again charging McCain ǀǀ of having accused him ǀǀ of wanting ǀǀ to invade that
nation, ǀǀ he emphatically demurred: ǀǀ “Nobody is calling for an invasion of
Pakistan. ǀǀǀ
In 23a, Obama appears as a Carrier who is judged to be out of his comfort zone. In 23b and
23c, he is shown to express conflicting opinions and is portrayed as verbally aggressive when
“charging” McCain of giving incorrect information.
50
On the whole, this editorial both links the candidates closer together and tries to draw a line
between them. While both candidates are criticized in the first half of the editorial because of
their views on economy, McCain is depicted as sharply aware of the exigencies of national
defense. On this issue, he appears as an intelligent Senser and Sayer. Obama, instead, is seen
as confused and uninformed on foreign policy matters.
6.3.2 The New York Post on Obama (Other)
Text 4 (Obama Pos)
In November 4, which was the presidential election date in 2008, NYP discussed the past
campaign and its consequences for the United States in its editorial “Today’s the day!”. The
emphasis in the editorial is on advancements in equality and tolerance, and Obama is
naturally mentioned in this context. However, he is not given prominence in the editorial but,
instead, is referred to only indirectly in reference to the aforementioned achievements. Being
one of the two editorials in NYP that depict Obama positively, this is noteworthy. It is
especially important to note that Obama is only referred to in the text circumstantially, as part
of a nominal group functioning as Identified, as the Carrier or as part of an Attribute:
Circumstantial:
(24a) ǀǀǀ No matter the outcome, the campaign has generated considerable excitement
due to the historic candidacy of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the first African-
American [[to secure a major party’s nomination for president]]. ǀǀǀ
Identified/Carrier:
(24b) ǀǀǀ Obama’s candidacy ǀǀ - if most polls are to be believed, ǀǀ he’s mere hours from
winning the office - ǀǀ represents a remarkable achievement for America. ǀǀǀ
Attribute:
(24c) ǀǀǀ Indeed, many [[who marched with King]] are still alive [[to see a black candidate
on the verge of winning the highest political office in the land]]. ǀǀǀ
Although the overall tone toward Obama is very positive, it is not so much Obama’s own
achievements, his actions and political experience or knowledge, that would be valued by
51
NYP. Rather, it is the tolerance and right-mindedness of the American people, which is
approved of in the text. Thus, the campaign is the Actor in 24a and the candidacy is the Head
noun in 24b. While the editorial grants some credit to Obama, the main entity to be thanked
for is the American public. Obama’s role is eventually instrumental and the transitivity
analysis makes this explicit.
Text 5 (Obama Neg)
In June 28 (Obama, adrift), NYP post wrote about Obama’s changing political views, a
behavior which it strongly disapproved. The newspaper lists several examples in which
Obama has acted inconsistently and so tries to prove Obama’s untrustworthiness. McCain is
mentioned once at the end of the text. Like Obama, he is depicted to have changed his mind
during the campaign, but whereas Obama’s shifts are portrayed as sudden and unfounded,
McCain is presented as acting on well-motivated grounds and based on consistent logic. In
the editorial, Obama appears in various participant roles. He is a participant in mental,
material and verbal clauses, for instance:
(25a) ǀǀǀ What does Barack Obama truly believe? ǀǀǀ Does it depend on the day of the
week? ǀǀǀ
(25b) ǀǀǀ True, candidates typically tack to the center after contentious primaries. ǀǀǀ But the
“candidate of change” is taking that process to Twilight Zone levels. ǀǀǀ
(25c) ǀǀǀ This week, Obama declared his support for a FISA bill [[that included just such
immunity]]. ǀǀǀ
Here, Obama first appears as a Senser whose commitment to his opinions is questioned. The
newspaper uses rhetorical questions to evoke a reaction in the reader and to challenge
Obama’s reliability. This rhetorical device is used often by NYP. In 25b, which exemplifies a
material process in which Obama appears as an Actor, Obama is depicted as someone who
overreacts. He does what presidential candidates normally do during the campaign but takes
his actions to extremes, which is not approved by NYP. Finally, Obama is presented as saying
things that contradict his prior statements and actions. Similarly, in example 26, Obama is
shown to backtrack from his views through verbal process clauses:
(26) ǀǀǀ He’s managed ǀǀ to switch his position on NAFTA twice: ǀǀ He supported it
before the primary; ǀǀ said ǀǀ he wanted ǀǀ to renegotiate it ǀǀ while campaigning in
52
Ohio - ǀǀ and now has told a magazine interviewer ǀǀ that his language during the
primaries may have been “overheated.” ǀǀǀ
Here, Obama is first presented as a Senser who has a specific opinion about a particular issue.
Then, he is shown to retract it through verbal clauses that emphasize his sudden change of
mood. In the text, Obama is also referred to in a relational clause, as part of a nominal group
functioning as the Carrier:
(27) ǀǀǀ His declaration before AIPAC [[that he believed in a “united Jerusalem”]] didn’t
even last a news cycle - ǀǀ a spokesman produced a “clarification” within hours after
Obama’s speech. ǀǀǀ
In this example, it is Obama’s statement that is given the status of a Carrier, not Obama
himself. A similar practice is in use in a material process clause in which Obama is mentioned
as part of a nominal group:
(28) ǀǀǀ But Barack Obama’s twists and turns reveal a lack of fundamental bearings. ǀǀǀ
This example refers to Obama in a nominal group functioning as an Actor. The Head noun is
not Obama, the person, but rather something this person has said or done. As such, this
example, like example 27 above, portrays Obama’s actions as nominalizations (his
declaration, Barack Obama’s twists and turns). The processes that these nominalizations are
based on are verbal and material, thus referring to Obama’s sayings or doings. These sayings
and doings are then either refuted by Obama’s representative or evaluated negatively by NYP.
In example 28, the nominalized actions emphasize the view of Obama as insecure and
hesitant, thus bringing an ideological interpretation to the fore.
As can be seen from above, Obama is presented in the editorial as an indecisive Senser or
Sayer or as an inconsistent Actor. McCain, on the other hand, is seen by NYP as acting
consistently, despite changing his views on oil drilling. He is mentioned only once in a
relational clause toward the end of the editorial:
(29) ǀǀǀ And changing circumstances can result in changing positions - such as John
McCain’s acknowledgement [[that the energy crisis now warrants more domestic
oil drilling]]. ǀǀǀ
53
Here, it is established that new views may be justifiable when circumstances change. Hence,
McCain’s declaration is approved of by NYP. Note that John McCain’s acknowledgement is a
nominalization that can be compared to the examples about Obama. Thus, while Obama is
negatively evaluated in a similar context, McCain is positively evaluated.
As a whole, this editorial portrays Obama very negatively. He is depicted as an unpredictable
and indecisive Senser, Sayer and Actor who may change his mind suddenly and is willing to
do that on weak grounds. While McCain has also shifted his views, he is seen to act based on
well-reasoned arguments.
Text 6 (Obama Div)
In August 5 (All pro-drilling now?), NYP once again addressed Obama’s changing views, this
time on oil drilling. The editorial portrays Obama negatively by suggesting that he is willing
to shift his views based on flimsy evidence or according to popular opinion. Obama is
repeatedly compared to McCain, who, in contrast, is depicted as well-informed and consistent
in his sayings and doings.15 In the text, Obama is presented in various participant roles. He
appears in verbal, mental and relational clauses, as in below:
(30a) ǀǀǀ The Democratic presidential hopeful says ǀǀ he’s now open [[to easing the
offshore-drilling ban]], ǀǀ and he wants ǀǀ to tap the nation’s Strategic Petroleum
Reserve. ǀǀǀ
(30b) ǀǀǀ Until recently, Obama was adamantly against offshore drilling and tapping the
SPR. ǀǀǀ
In 30a and 30b, Obama is presented as an untrustworthy Sayer and Senser, but also a Carrier
in a relational process. In both examples, he is shown to have changed his opinion
unexpectedly. Similarly, Obama is portrayed as an indecisive Actor who changes course
whenever it suits his needs:
(31) ǀǀǀ That might be believable ǀǀ if he hadn’t also made popular turnabouts on many
other issues, like NAFTA, the terror-monitoring bill and talking to Iran. ǀǀǀ
15
Interestingly, NYT wrote about the exact same issue five days after NYP’s editorial had been published. The
newspaper tried to contextualize Obama’s actions in the current economic and environmental setting. NYT
criticized Obama but it also found positive aspects in Obama’s suggestions. McCain was mentioned in the text,
as well, and he was mainly presented negatively.
54
Here, Obama is shown to have back-pedaled on various issues that have been under
discussion during the election campaign. Note that the issues listed by NYP are the same that
the newspaper has addressed in its previous editorials, such as the editorial from June 28,
“Obama, adrift”, which was discussed above. Thus, NYP skillfully maintains a link to its
previous writing and thus reminds the reader of matters discussed in its earlier editorials.
In this editorial, NYP takes the role of an adviser who has the power to judge Obama’s
behavior. At the end of the editorial, NYP advises Obama by presenting him as an Actor in a
material process:
(32) ǀǀǀ But at some point, he’s going to have to pick a policy ǀǀ and stick with it. ǀǀǀ
Here, Obama is instructed to follow NYP’s recommendations. Although Obama appears as an
Actor in the example, it should be noted that the status is not of a participant acting of his own
free will. Because of the modal verb, a sense of forced action is conveyed and thus Obama is
portrayed to have no other option but to comply. In addition, the newspaper evaluates
Obama’s views through relational clauses:
(33) ǀǀǀ Obama’s new view on drilling, of course, is welcome; ǀǀ environmental concerns
pale next to the need for more oil. ǀǀǀ His switch on SPR oil, on the other hand, is
not. ǀǀǀ
Here, the nominal groups Obama’s new view on drilling and his switch on SPR oil are
Carriers in attributive clauses, and welcome is the evaluative Attribute. As can be seen, NYP
evaluates Obama positively on one of the issues, but negatively on the other.
In contrast to Obama, McCain is presented in the editorial as a firm Actor, not as a Sayer or
Senser. Thus, whereas Obama is an unreliable Sayer and Senser who acts against his own
advice, McCain is portrayed as acting consistently, being against any legislative modifications
or policy changes that contradict his prior commitments. In example 34, Obama and McCain
are contrasted and compared to each other through material, mental and relational clauses:
(34) ǀǀǀ And he’s [Obama] U-turning on yet a third oil issue: ǀǀ He wants a windfall-
profits tax on oil companies, ǀǀ even as he voted ǀǀ to give them breaks in ‘05. ǀǀǀ
McCain voted against the breaks ǀǀ but is against hikes now. ǀǀǀ
55
In this example, Obama is depicted as an Actor who participates in a material process
involving change of opinion (he’s U-turning, he voted). As a Senser, he is portrayed as a
person who thinks or wants something that contradicts his earlier thoughts, sayings or actions
(he wants). McCain, on the other hand, is shown to act consistently (McCain voted; material
process) and stick firmly to his opinions ([he] is against; relational process). Furthermore,
McCain’s actions are assigned a positive evaluation by NYP:
(35) ǀǀǀ McCain’s right on this, too: […] ǀǀǀ
To soften one’s opinion and to represent McCain in a more realistic light, NYP makes one
concession. The newspaper admits that McCain has also changed his opinion about one issue,
namely offshore drilling. However, this shift of opinion differs from the ones by Obama,
since McCain is presented to be acting according to a consistent logic that supports his
decision:
(36) ǀǀǀ To be fair, John McCain has also shifted his views ǀǀ to support offshore drilling.
ǀǀǀ But McCain isn’t trying ǀǀ to have it both ways: ǀǀ When prices soared, ǀǀ he did
his 180 ǀǀ because the facts had changed. ǀǀǀ
Here, McCain is portrayed as an Actor in potentially negative processes. However, what is
emphasized is the Republican candidate’s logical thinking, an aspect which is lacking in the
descriptions about Obama. Hence, McCain makes “turnabouts” only when absolutely
necessary. Thus, throughout the editorial, a tension is built between McCain as the sensible,
rational presidential candidate and Obama as the ill-advised, undecided one.
6.3.3 The New York Times on Obama (Self)
Text 7 (Obama Pos)
The editorial from July 17 (Talking sense on Iraq) addressed a topic that was one of the main
themes during the election campaign, namely foreign policy, and specifically the withdrawal
from Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. In the editorial, Obama is portrayed as an intelligent
leader who is willing to take actions to correct the mistakes done during the Bush presidency.
56
Obama is depicted acting farsightedly and wisely, and his role is emphasized in the text.
McCain, on the other hand, is seen as a continuator of President Bush’s policies and,
therefore, is given negative evaluation by NYT. In the editorial, the candidates’ views
concerning Iraq and Afghanistan are compared and the validity of these views is analyzed.
The text presents Obama first and foremost as a Sayer who makes correct interpretations
about matters concerning Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. The examples 37a–f illustrate this:
(37a) ǀǀǀ Until this week, when Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic
nominee, offered a sensible and comprehensive blueprint [[for dealing with the
mess [[that President Bush created by bungling the war of necessity against Al
Qaeda in Afghanistan, which could have made Americans safer, and starting a war
of choice in Iraq, which made the world more insecure]] ]]. ǀǀǀ
(37b) ǀǀǀ As Mr. Obama correctly asserted in an Op-Ed article in The Times on Monday
and in a speech on Tuesday, ǀǀ those countries, not Iraq, are the real frontline of the
war against terrorism. ǀǀǀ
(37c) ǀǀǀ He also promised an extra $2 billion as part of an international effort [[to deal
with more than four million displaced Iraqis — a crisis that the Bush administration
has unconscionably ignored]]. ǀǀǀ
(37d) ǀǀǀ Mr. Obama wisely said ǀǀ that it was time to capitalize on American soldiers’
sacrifices to plan an end to the war. ǀǀǀ “At some point, a judgment must be made,” ǀǀ
he said. ǀǀǀ
(37e) ǀǀǀ He pointed out ǀǀ that the military cannot sustain Mr. Bush’s troop surge. ǀǀǀ “True
success will take place when we leave Iraq to a government that is taking
responsibility for its future,” ǀǀ he said. ǀǀǀ
(37f) ǀǀǀ He proposed ǀǀ keeping a residual force in Iraq for specific missions like fighting
Al Qaeda. ǀǀǀ He also wisely asserted ǀǀǀ he will make tactical adjustments as needed.
ǀǀǀ
In the examples above, Mr. Obama is presented as a participant in various verbal activities.
As can be seen, there are a variety of verbs that can appear in a verbal process. The most
neutral option is the verb say. In this text, it is the verb used most often. In example 37d,
however, there is a modal adverb present, which attaches a sense of evaluation in the clause.
The adverb wisely expresses NYT’s opinion about what Obama has said. Note that Obama is
both directly quoted and indirectly reported in this example. Examples 37b and 37f also
contain modal adverbs, which contribute to the persuasiveness of the editorial. In 37a, on the
other hand, the adjectives sensible and comprehensive express NYT’s stance toward Obama
and his actions. In addition to say, other verbs, which accentuate the way of saying, are used.
57
These verbs include assert, propose, promise and point out. Thus, in the text, Obama is
portrayed as an active participant in different types of verbal processes.
In addition to verbal clauses, Obama is also depicted as an Actor in a material process. In this
case, he appears as a participant who takes concrete steps to improve the situation in
Afghanistan, as in example 38:
(38) ǀǀǀ Mr. Obama said ǀǀ he would withdraw combat forces from Iraq by 2010, ǀǀ shift
at least 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan [[that could be leveraged to persuade
NATO allies to also increase their numbers]], ǀǀ send more nonmilitary aid to
Afghanistan ǀǀ and build a stronger Afghanistan-Pakistan-NATO partnership on the
lawless border. ǀǀǀ
Here, Obama is presented as expressing his commitment to material actions that would have
concrete consequences in the reality of Iraq and Afghanistan. He is thus portrayed to have the
concrete cures to solve the difficult situation in these countries.
In the text, Obama is also sometimes referred to in a mental clause in which he appears as a
Senser who acknowledges foreign policy realities. In 39a and 39b, NYT approves of Obama’s
opinions:
(39a) ǀǀǀ We were encouraged ǀǀ that Mr. Obama embraced a proposal by the leaders of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — the Democratic chairman, Joseph
Biden, and the ranking Republican, Richard Lugar — [[to triple nonmilitary aid to
Pakistan to $7.5 billion over five years]]. ǀǀǀ
(39b) ǀǀǀ Mr. Obama acknowledged that reality, and the fact [[that Mr. Bush’s decision to
deploy more troops last year has reduced the violence]]. ǀǀǀ
Here, Mr. Obama is depicted to be discerning about foreign policy matters. In 39a, NYT
explicitly states its stance toward Obama by using the adjective encouraged. Similarly, NYT
mentions Obama in a relational process where he is approved of by the newspaper. McCain is
mentioned in the same sentence in a circumstantial of Contingency:
(40) ǀǀǀ Mr. Obama has a better grasp of the big picture, despite Mr. McCain’s claim to
more foreign policy experience. ǀǀǀ
58
This relational clause links the two candidates together and contrasts their views so that
Obama appears as the competent candidate, whereas McCain is seen as the one less proficient
in these matters. McCain’s incompetence is also addressed elsewhere in the editorial. For
example, he is portrayed as an Actor who changes his opinions suddenly and who sticks
stubbornly to Bush’s policies:
(41a) ǀǀǀ After arguing that no additional forces were needed, ǀǀ Mr. McCain reversed
course on Tuesday ǀǀ and endorsed sending 15,000 more troops to Afghanistan. ǀǀǀ
(41b) ǀǀǀ Mr. McCain is still tied in knots, ǀǀ largely adopting Mr. Bush’s blind defense of
an unending conflict. ǀǀǀ
(41c) ǀǀǀ Mr. McCain uses that [Mr. Bush’s successful troop surge] to justify an unending
war. ǀǀǀ
Thus, whereas Obama is presented in the editorial as a determined Actor who takes concrete
steps to improve the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq, McCain is seen as a hesitant or
stubborn Actor who does not offer concrete solutions to foreign policy questions. When he is
referred to in a relational clause, his incompetence is even further emphasized:
(42a) ǀǀǀ Mr. Obama’s Republican rival, Senator John McCain, is no longer able [[to
ignore the situation on the Afghan-Pakistan border, ǀǀ where Al Qaeda and the
Taliban — the true threats to American security — are resurgent]]. ǀǀǀ But he has
not matched Mr. Obama’s seriousness on Iraq. ǀǀǀ
(42b) ǀǀǀ But he seemed confused [[about whether they would be American forces drawn
from Iraq or an American-NATO mix]], ǀǀ leaving us wondering ǀǀ how well formed
his ideas are. ǀǀǀ
Here, McCain appears as an indecisive Carrier (is no longer able, he seemed) and is
contrasted with Obama in a relational identifying clause (he has not matched). Throughout the
editorial, McCain is linked to President Bush and his (negatively evaluated) actions. Below,
NYT criticizes Bush very strongly:
(43a) ǀǀǀ Until this week, when Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic
nominee, offered a sensible and comprehensive blueprint [[for dealing with the
mess [[that President Bush created by bungling the war of necessity against Al
Qaeda in Afghanistan, which could have made Americans safer, and starting a war
of choice in Iraq, which made the world more insecure]] ]]. ǀǀǀ
59
(43b) ǀǀǀ For far too long, Mr. Bush’s preoccupation with his misadventure in Iraq ǀǀ —
which fostered a presence for Al Qaeda where there was none — ǀǀ has dangerously
diverted precious manpower, resources and high-level attention from Afghanistan
and Pakistan. ǀǀǀ
Here, President Bush is shown to take part in actions that have had severe consequences. He
is the Actor who “creates a mess”, “bungles a war of necessity” and “starts a war of choice”,
that is, he is depicted to have made many poor decisions during his presidency. Due to these
reasons, his policies are strongly disapproved of by NYT.
All in all, this editorial paints a very differing picture of the two presidential candidates.
Obama is portrayed as a sensible, well-informed Sayer and Senser who proposes concrete
solutions to improve the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq. McCain, by contrast, is seen as an
irresolute Actor who does not have concrete policy suggestions concerning the two countries.
In the editorial, he is linked to President Bush whose policies he is shown to support
unconditionally. The fact that Bush is strongly criticized by NYT further strengthens the
negative association between the two Republicans.
Text 8 (Obama Neg)
In July 4 (New and not improved), NYT addressed an issue that also NYP had discussed more
than once in its editorials: Obama’s changing views. In the editorial, NYT gives several
examples of issues in which Obama has changed his opinion and thus appeared hesitant in
front of the public as well as the media. The topics discussed include public financing in the
general election, big-money donations in the presidential campaign, electronic wiretapping
bill that would cover President Bush’s alleged eavesdropping after 9/11, political interest
groups, gun control and death penalty. NYT discusses each topic individually, showing how
Obama has changed his opinion in each case. The newspaper is very critical toward Obama’s
behavior, yet emphasizes the differences between the two candidates toward the end of the
text. In the text, Obama is presented most often as a Sayer who has made declarations,
promises and vows to the public:
(44a) ǀǀǀ He spoke with passion [[about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and
catering to special pleaders]], ǀǀ promised ǀǀ to end President Bush’s abuses of
power and subverting of the Constitution ǀǀ and disowned the big-money power
brokers ǀǀ who have corrupted Washington politics. ǀǀǀ
60
(44b) ǀǀǀ In January, ǀǀ when he was battling for Super Tuesday votes, ǀǀ Mr. Obama said ǀǀ
that the 1978 law requiring warrants for wiretapping, and the special court it
created, worked. ǀǀǀ “We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring
that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight and do not undermine the very
laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend,” ǀǀ he declared. ǀǀǀ
(44c) ǀǀǀ The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag ǀǀ that he would stand
before interest groups ǀǀ and tell them tough truths. ǀǀǀ
Here, Obama is depicted as a politician who gives public statements and makes promises to
voters about his future actions. Note that the promises involve material processes, such as
“ending President Bush’s abuses of power” and “standing before interest groups”. Obama is
thus shown to woo the listeners by promising to act firmly in his presidential duties (if chosen
in the office). Through the verbal clauses, NYT paints a picture of an assertive presidential
candidate who is willing to commit himself to unpleasant, yet necessary actions against those
that have misused the system. The exception is example 44c, in which the tense of the verb
gives a hint that Obama’s promises may not last long. The choice of the verb to brag
anticipates some sort of change in NYT’s approach. Indeed, what follows immediately is
contradictory behavior, material, mental or verbal, in which Obama appears as an Actor,
Senser or Sayer:
Material:
(45a) ǀǀǀ First, he broke his promise [[to try to keep both major parties within public-
financing limits for the general election]]. ǀǀǀ
(45b) ǀǀǀ The new Barack Obama has abandoned his vow [[to filibuster an electronic
wiretapping bill ǀǀ if it includes an immunity clause for telecommunications
companies ǀǀ that amounts to a sanctioned cover-up of Mr. Bush’s unlawful
eavesdropping after 9/11]]. ǀǀǀ
Mental:
(45c) ǀǀǀ Now, he supports the immunity clause as part of what he calls a compromise but
actually is a classic, cynical Washington deal [[that erodes the power of the special
court, virtually eliminates “vigorous oversight” and allows more warrantless
eavesdropping than ever]]. ǀǀǀ
Verbal:
(45d) ǀǀǀ The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians ǀǀ that he wants ǀǀ to expand
President Bush’s policy [[of funneling public money for social spending to
61
religious-based organizations]] — a policy [[that violates the separation of church
and state and turns a government function into a charitable donation]]. ǀǀǀ
Here, Obama’s earlier views and promises are contradicted by his material, mental and verbal
behavior as an Actor, Senser and Sayer. In general, NYT’s argumentation relies on first
presenting Obama’s opinions and then showing how the candidate has changed his position or
acted against his earlier advice. Thus, the following types of meaning chains are created in the
text:
(46a) ǀǀǀ In January […] Mr. Obama said […] Now, he supports […] ǀǀǀ
(46b) ǀǀǀ The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag […] The new Mr.
Obama tells […] that he wants […] ǀǀǀ
As can be seen from above, NYT skillfully constructs tension between the initial excitement
and stirring promises made by Obama and his later sayings and doings that contradict them.
In the editorial, Obama is depicted to have changed his mind on many important issues, which
is why NYT strongly criticizes him. However, Obama is not presented as simply acting on his
own. Instead, NYT refers to Obama through his campaign office staff, who is portrayed to
take part in verbal and material processes as the Sayer and the Actor:
Verbal:
(47a) ǀǀǀ His team explained ǀǀ that, ǀǀ saying he had a grass-roots-based model and that
while he was forgoing public money, ǀǀ he also was eschewing gold-plated fund-
raisers. ǀǀǀ
(47b) ǀǀǀ Even his own chief money collector, Penny Pritzker, suggests ǀǀ that the magic of
$20 donations from the Web was less a matter of principle than of scheduling. ǀǀǀ
Verbal/material:
(47c) ǀǀǀ “We have not been able to have much of the senator’s time during the primaries,
so we have had to rely more on the Internet,” ǀǀ she [Mr. Obama’s chief money
collector] explained ǀǀ as she and her team busily scheduled more than a dozen big-
ticket events over the next few weeks [[at which the target price for quality time
with the candidate is more than $30,000 per person]]. ǀǀǀ
In 47a–c, Obama is linked to his staff. In 47a, especially, Obama’s views are paralleled to the
statements by the campaign office, and thus Obama and his team are linked to each other. In
62
addition to material and verbal processes, Obama appears in the editorial as an Existent in an
existential process:
(48a) ǀǀǀ Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings. ǀǀǀ
(48b) ǀǀǀ There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on
issues like the war in Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations. ǀǀǀ
Here, the propositions serve a “presentative” function, thus introducing new information in
the text (see Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 257). Note that also Mr. McCain is mentioned in
48b. This is the only time he appears in this text. Finally, Obama is also portrayed through
relational processes. In a relational clause, Obama appears both as a Carrier and as an
Identified/Identifier. Below, Obama’s behavior is evaluated through attributive and
identifying constructions, respectively:
(49) ǀǀǀ But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking ǀǀ because he was the candidate [[who
proposed to change the face of politics]], the man of passionate convictions [[who
did not play old political games]]. ǀǀǀ
Overall, this editorial is based on verbal processes. NYT presents what Obama has stated in
public, what he has promised and what kind of vows he has made to the voters. In the
beginning, the newspaper sets an expectation for the reader by presenting Obama as a hope-
bringing Actor who rouses positive feelings in his audience:
(50) ǀǀǀ Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, ǀǀ and raised our hopes,
ǀǀ promising to change the old order of things. ǀǀǀ
Immediately after, however, he is shown to go back on his promises by acting against his own
advice or by switching his views. In addition, Obama’s campaign office is depicted to support
this behavior through their actions and verbal processes. Despite emphasizing the differences
between Obama and McCain toward the end of text, NYT condemns Obama’s actions and, as
a whole, his behavior is negatively evaluated.
Text 9 (Obama Div)
In June 20 (Public funding on the ropes), NYT discussed campaign financing in the
presidential elections. In the text, the newspaper questions the shift from public spending
63
limitations to unlimited private financing. Especially Obama is criticized for favoring private
donations in his campaign at the cost of public funding and mutual spending limitations.
McCain is shown to accept the spending limitations, but he is criticized for allowing the
operation of private sponsors and financiers called shadow groups acting in the background.
In the editorial, Obama is most often referred to in a relational clause. He appears both in
attributive and identifying clause types:
Attributive:
(51a) ǀǀǀ Unfortunately, Mr. Obama has come up short of that standard with his decision
[[to reject public spending limitations and opt instead for unlimited private
financing in the general election]]. ǀǀǀ
(51b) ǀǀǀ Mr. Obama’s power [[to excite average donations of less than $100]] also is
admirable, ǀǀ and his concerns about his opponent are understandable. ǀǀǀ
(51c) ǀǀǀ But Mr. Obama’s description of public financing as “broken” is only half true. ǀǀǀ
(51d) ǀǀǀ So far, however, the Web phenomenon remains unique to Mr. Obama, ǀǀ and is
no reason [[to set the dangerous precedent of fully scrapping public financing]]. ǀǀǀ
(51e) ǀǀǀ The excitement [[underpinning Senator Barack Obama’s campaign]] rests
considerably on his evocative vows [[to depart from self-interested politics]]. ǀǀǀ
Identifying:
(51f) ǀǀǀ Mr. Obama is the first presidential candidate [[to rebuff the public system’s
restrictions for the general election ǀǀ since they were enacted after the Watergate
scandal]]. ǀǀǀ
In the attributive clauses (examples 51a–e), NYT evaluates Obama and his actions, as in his
concerns about his opponent are understandable and Mr. Obama’s description of public
financing as “broken” is only half true. Here, Obama is presented as the Carrier who is
depicted to have said or done something which NYT then judges to be true or not true, to be
positive or negative. The nominal groups understandable and only half true are Attributes,
which represent NYT’s positioning on the issue. Alternatively, Obama can appear as an
Attribute, as in 51d, in which the success of internet fundraising is depicted as Obama’s
unique achievement.
In the identifying type of relational clause (example 51f), Obama appears both as the
Identified and the Identifier. In this editorial, he is presented as the only presidential candidate
64
who has rejected public spending limitations for the general election. Hence, he is identified
as someone who refuses to obey shared rules. Through the relational clauses, NYT evaluates
Obama’s actions and his behavior, thus bringing an element of assessment in the text. In
comparison, McCain is not mentioned in a relational clause in this editorial, and, therefore, he
is not evaluated by NYT in the way that Obama is.
In addition to relational clauses, Obama appears in this editorial in material process clauses.
He and/or his campaign team are thus presented as an Actor:
(52a) ǀǀǀ In doing so, he pronounced the public system “broken” ǀǀ and turned away from
his earlier strong suggestion — greatly applauded at the time — [[that he would
pursue an agreement with the Republican candidate ǀǀ to preserve the publicly
subsidized restraints this fall]]. ǀǀǀ
(52b) ǀǀǀ That, of course, was [[before Mr. Obama discovered his prodigious talent [[to
stir private donors on the Internet]] ǀǀ and ended up ǀǀ raising hundreds of millions
of dollars in small-bore contributions]]. ǀǀǀ
(52c) ǀǀǀ Commendably, the Obama campaign has cut off lobbyist donations to the
Democratic National Committee ǀǀ and discouraged donors from helping the
freewheeling, 527 shadow operations of liberal sympathizers. ǀǀǀ
(52d) ǀǀǀ (Before he took off on the Internet, ǀǀ more than half of Mr. Obama’s campaign
funding last year for crucial early contests came from contributions of $1,000 or
more, according to the Campaign Finance Institute.) ǀǀǀ
Here, Obama is portrayed to engage in both positively and negatively evaluated actions. He
is shown to renounce his previous views that NYT, among others, has supported, but he is
also depicted to act respectably when rejecting funding by the lobbyists in the campaign. In
52a, the sense of disapproval is realized in combination with the Process turned away and the
circumstance of Location, expressed by the prepositional phrase from his earlier strong
suggestion, which indicate abstract movement away from a recommendable course of action.
Note that, in the same example, McCain is referred to in a circumstantial of Accompaniment.
In 52c, the modal adverb commendably conveys NYT’s opinions.
In this editorial, Obama is further presented as a Sayer and a Senser. Example 52a with In
doing so, he pronounced the public system “broken” is an instance of a verbal process. Other
examples are provided below.
65
Mental/verbal:
(53a) ǀǀǀ Mr. Obama expects ǀǀ he can raise three or four times that [$84.1 million, the
public spending limit in the general election]. ǀǀǀ He insists ǀǀ he needs the larger
flow ǀǀ to hold off unscrupulous Republican “masters at gaming this broken system”
via separate party funds and Swift Boat-style smear campaigns. ǀǀǀ
Verbal:
(53b) ǀǀǀ The Obama campaign argues ǀǀ that it has come upon a better system of public
financing, in effect. ǀǀǀ
(53c) ǀǀǀ He has not, however, sworn off all possibility of large-scale, special-interest
contributions. ǀǀǀ
In the examples above, the first clause is a mental process and the rest (in bold) are verbal
processes. In 53b, Obama is referred to collectively through the use of the nominal group the
Obama campaign. Here, it is not clear who exactly falls under the reference. It could be
various persons involved in the campaign, including Obama himself. Despite the ambiguous
reference, the association to Obama is evident, and thus whatever is said about the campaign
is also said about Obama.
McCain, as mentioned above, is also referred to in this editorial. He is contrasted with Obama
several times in the text. Like Obama, McCain appears in the text as a participant in a
material process. He and the Republican Party are portrayed as the Actor in examples 54a–c:
(54a) ǀǀǀ The feat [Obama’s fundraising success on the Internet] is unmatched thus far by
Senator John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee, ǀǀ who got most of his
money from big donors. ǀǀǀ
(54b) ǀǀǀ The Republican Party is raising a great deal of money, ǀǀ and shadow groups
known as 527s have tens of millions [[to spend]]. ǀǀǀ
(54c) ǀǀǀ Now [[that he’s the presumptive nominee]], however, he [McCain] is inviting
them [527s, the shadow groups] into the fray on his behalf. ǀǀǀ
As can be seen, the material clauses that McCain and his party appear in are all related to
fundraising. In 54a and 54b, money appears as the Goal of the material action. However, also
McCain himself is represented as the Goal in a clause which depicts the Republican candidate
as the victim of dirty tactics.
66
(55) ǀǀǀ Mr. McCain knows the power of these groups ǀǀ since they slimed him out of the
2000 Republican primaries. ǀǀǀ
Here, McCain is portrayed as being affected by the scheming of the shadow groups. NYT
thus depicts McCain as the victim of a plot. In addition to the roles of the Actor and the Goal,
McCain appears as a Sayer and a Senser in the editorial. In example 55, the first clause is a
mental process clause, and the nominal group Mr. McCain is the Senser. Below, McCain is
depicted as a Sayer and a Senser, respectively:
(56) ǀǀǀ Public financing, ǀǀ which Mr. McCain has indicated ǀǀ he would accept, ǀǀ limits
spending to $84.1 million in the general election. ǀǀǀ
In example 56, the mental clause functions as a report of what Mr. McCain has said; the
mental clause is thus reported speech. The verbal group has indicated has been interpreted as
a verbal process since verbal processes cover “any kind of symbolic exchange of meaning”, as
suggested above in the theoretical section.
To summarize, both presidential candidates are referred to in this editorial and they appear as
participants in material, mental and verbal processes. NYT’s attitude toward the candidates is
not straightforward but involves both positive and negative evaluations about the candidates
and their actions. However, what separates the two candidates is Obama’s portrayal through
relational process clauses, which gives NYT the possibility to analyze the Democratic
candidate explicitly by assigning evaluative Attributes to him. As the editorial includes both
positive and negative evaluations, these Attributes are not solely approving.
6.3.4 The New York Times on McCain (Other)
Text 10 (McCain Pos)
In September 13 (The spirit of public service), NYT wrote about the 9/11 remembrance
speeches given by the two presidential candidates to support volunteer work. Both candidates
are referred to in the text and both are praised for their actions. What is emphasized is
cooperation between the two candidates and their parties. Therefore, the candidates are
mainly referred to jointly and portrayed as acting together. The candidates appear as Actors,
Sayers and Carriers in the editorial, as in below:
67
(57a) ǀǀǀ At a forum at Columbia University [[marking the seventh anniversary of the Sept.
11 attacks]], John McCain and Barack Obama took a break from their increasingly
harsh presidential contest ǀǀ to speak with genuine passion about a worthy cause
[[they both share]]: engaging more Americans in national service. ǀǀǀ
(57b) ǀǀǀ They pledged ǀǀ to make a new call to public service a hallmark of the next
presidency. ǀǀǀ
(57c) ǀǀǀ Giving concrete expression to those pledges, ǀǀ the candidates are among the co-
sponsors of a promising piece of legislation [[introduced on Friday in the Senate]].
ǀǀǀ
Here, the two presidential candidates appear in a material process of volitional action as well
as in a verbal process of expressing one’s ambitions. In 57c, the candidates are depicted
through a relational process as promoters of a certain type of legislation. As can be seen, the
nominal groups that refer to the candidates are in plural or state explicitly the names of both
candidates. In addition to the relational process above, the candidates are referred to as part of
a nominal group functioning as Identifier or Carrier:
(58a) ǀǀǀ [[What was striking about their back-to-back interviews]], ǀǀ conducted by Judy
Woodruff of PBS’s “NewsHour With Jim Lehrer” and Richard Stengel of Time
magazine before 1,000 people in Columbia’s Lerner Hall, ǀǀ was their respectful
tone. ǀǀǀ
(58b) ǀǀǀ Their overlapping views were no less remarkable. ǀǀǀ
In 58a and 58b, it is the candidates’ attitudes and opinions that are analyzed by NYT. In 58a,
the process is identifying and, in 58b, it is attributive. While the above examples present
Obama and McCain acting together in joint activities, McCain is, in addition, mentioned
separately when praising his positive attitude toward Obama. In example 59, McCain appears
as a Sayer and an Actor:
(59) ǀǀǀ At one point, Mr. McCain even expressed admiration for Mr. Obama’s work
[[done years ago as a community organizer]], ǀǀ departing from disparaging
remarks [[made by his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, at the Republican
convention]]. ǀǀǀ
Here, McCain is praised for his verbal and material actions that condemn (though indirectly)
Sarah Palin’s inappropriate behavior in the election campaign. NYT depicts McCain as
someone with backbone and thus evaluates him positively.
68
Overall, the editorial emphasizes cooperation between the two presidential candidates. The
candidates are shown to share opinions or to act together for a common purpose. The 9/11
commemoration is depicted as a joint franchise, and for NYT, it is not a time to underline the
differences between the presidential candidates but rather to cast faith at a time of national
grief.
Text 11 (McCain Neg)
In the editorial from July 12 (There he goes again), McCain is criticized for his empty rhetoric
when discussing national budget deficit. According to NYT, McCain’s plan of balancing the
federal budget is unrealistic and does not compensate for the tax cuts allocated by the
previous government, the tax cuts which McCain is suggested to continue if elected president.
In the text, McCain is presented as an unrealistic Actor who is disapproved of by NYT:
(60a) ǀǀǀ Mr. McCain cannot balance the budget on a crusade against pork and a one-year
freeze in a sliver of federal spending. ǀǀǀ
(60b) ǀǀǀ But a leader [[who wants to steer the nation through tough times]] should not
spend the campaign ǀǀ telling Americans ǀǀ they can have it all. ǀǀǀ
Here, McCain is first criticized of being naive in his suggestion to control public spending
through minor restrictions in federal expenditure. At the end of the editorial, he is then
scolded indirectly for entertaining illusions about the economy and giving pretenses to the
public. In addition to material process clauses, McCain also appears as a participant in verbal
and mental processes.
(61a) ǀǀǀ Even reform of Social Security, ǀǀ which Mr. McCain has also promised ǀǀ and
which also must occur ǀǀ to restore long-term fiscal balance, ǀǀ would not right the
budget anytime soon. ǀǀǀ
(61b) ǀǀǀ Mr. McCain and his advisers must know that his numbers do not add up. ǀǀǀ
In 61a and 61b, McCain is presented as a Sayer and Senser, respectively. However, while all
of the above process types appear in the editorial, McCain is most often mentioned in a
relational clause. He appears in attributive processes but is also referred to in identifying
clauses, as exemplified below:
69
Carrier:
(62a) ǀǀǀ Either he has a secret plan [[to balance the budget]] ǀǀ or he’s blowing smoke. ǀǀǀ
Attribute:
(62b) ǀǀǀ [[Following in those footsteps]] does not, however, make a good case for his
candidacy. ǀǀǀ
Identified:
(62c) ǀǀǀ Mr. McCain’s main campaign promises, ǀǀ if fulfilled, ǀǀ would lead to huge
budget deficits. ǀǀǀ
Identifier:
(62d) ǀǀǀ And yet, the biggest news [[that Senator John McCain made last week]] was his
renewal of a pledge [[to balance the federal budget by 2013]]. ǀǀǀ
In examples 62a–d, McCain thus appears as a Carrier or he is mentioned as part of a nominal
group which functions either as Attribute, Identified or Identifier. In 62a, McCain is portrayed
as a potential “owner” of a plan to solve the budget crisis. Then, his hypothetical future
actions are given an unfavorable assessment. In 62c, McCain’s policy objectives are predicted
to have disastrous results. Finally, his verbal actions are negatively evaluated. In examples
62b–d, the Head of the nominal group is some other element than a noun or a pronoun
referring to McCain (case, promises and renewal, respectively). McCain appears as the
Premodifier or Postmodifier in these nominal groups.
In addition to appearing as a participant in the editorial, McCain is also mentioned once in a
circumstantial of Cause (Behalf) in reference to his predecessors:
(63) ǀǀǀ But [[feeding the fantasy]] is easier [[than presenting tough choices]], ǀǀ and it
worked for Mr. McCain’s Republican predecessors. ǀǀǀ
McCain is here linked to previous Republican presidents, most notably to George W. Bush
whose policies NYT has criticized in several of its editorials. The purpose is to present
McCain negatively through the party’s mistakes. However, the main argument in the editorial
is built around McCain’s poor reasoning on budget balancing methods, which are then
criticized mainly by reference to his misleading vows to the public.
70
Text 12 (McCain Div)
In September 1 (John McCain’s challenge), NYT considered McCain’s chances for becoming
president, weighing the pros and the cons for his election. There was an advisory element
present when the newspaper evaluated what McCain must do to win the presidency. In the
text, McCain is praised for his previous policies but, at the same time, he is compared to
George W. Bush in a way that is not complimentary.
In the editorial, McCain mainly appears as a participant in a material process. He is either
presented as the active instigator in the process, that is, the Actor, or the affected Goal.
However, he also appears once as a Client. As an Actor, McCain is portrayed as entertaining
illusions about Iraq or is advised to change his policies to a more moderate direction:
(64a) ǀǀǀ He not only champions the war in Iraq as a strategic necessity, ǀǀ but also lags
even the administration in his willingness [[to set a timetable for withdrawal]]. ǀǀǀ
(64b) ǀǀǀ He could do himself good ǀǀ if he makes a serious effort [[to rekindle the
affection of Republican moderates and independents ǀǀ who have admired his
personal courage, competitiveness and occasional willingness [[to buck party
orthodoxy and take legislative risks]] ]]. ǀǀǀ
(64c) ǀǀǀ This is a huge challenge, ǀǀ and his performance at this convention could give us
some sense [[of whether he can rise to it]]. ǀǀǀ
(64d) ǀǀǀ But [[reawakening a bit of the old maverick]] would do more [[to win the respect
of the American middle]] than gimmicky proposals for a gas-tax holiday or wild
charges about Mr. Obama’s patriotism or slavish fealty to the darker aspects of the
Bush presidency. ǀǀǀ
Here, McCain is the Actor who is shown to behave in a certain way or is given advice on how
to act in the future. NYT thus evaluates McCain’s actions and gives its own recommendations
for the future. The use of modal verbs creates the advisory feel in these examples and is a
defining factor in the construction of ideology. Similarly, in 64a, the use of the verb to lag
signals a strategic choice by NYT. In examples 64c and 64d, McCain is referred to in the
nominal group serving as Actor. Here, the Head of the nominal group is not McCain himself
but some other noun or nominalization referring to McCain’s sayings or doings.
71
As the Goal, McCain is presented as affected by some action in which the Actor is either a
collective or a natural phenomenon.
(65a) ǀǀǀ Later this week the Republican National Convention will formally send John
McCain ǀǀ to go forth ǀǀ and do battle for the White House with Barack Obama. ǀǀǀ
(65b) ǀǀǀ Mr. McCain’s week is complicated by Hurricane Gustav, ǀǀ which prompted
President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney ǀǀ to cancel plans [[to appear in St.
Paul on Monday]]. ǀǀǀ
In 65a, McCain is depicted as being affected by the Republican National Convention’s
decisions. A hierarchy between the individual candidate and the party is thus established
through assignment of power in a material process. In 65b, McCain is presented as the Goal in
a material clause where he appears as part of the nominal group. Note that here the Actor is
not animate, but a hurricane that affects McCain’s plans by preventing the President and the
Vice President from taking part in the Republican National Convention.
In addition to the typical roles of a material process, the Actor and the Goal, McCain is once
mentioned in the role of the Client. Here, an evaluation is given about a course of action, and
through the use of the Client this evaluation is attached to McCain:
(66) ǀǀǀ For Mr. McCain, ǀǀ presuming his convention proceeds as planned, ǀǀ it will do no
good [[to simply throw ideological red meat to the delegates]]. ǀǀǀ
In all of the examples 64–66, McCain is thus presented as a participant in a material process.
These processes describe doings and happenings in the world. Therefore, the editorial is
largely built on something that has happened in the past or that is predicted to happen in the
future. McCain is, however, also mentioned in mental processes where he appears as the
Phenomenon:
(67a) ǀǀǀ One cannot envy Mr. McCain, ǀǀ burdened as he is with the toxic legacies of the
Bush administration — including a fragile economy, a battered middle class, an
increasingly unequal society and a grinding, unnecessary war that has exacted a
huge toll in lives, money, civil liberties and America’s reputation abroad. ǀǀǀ
(67b) ǀǀǀ Still, one yearns for the John McCain [[who used to pride himself on being
above this sort of thing, ǀǀ and who was devastated by Mr. Bush’s sleazy tactics in
the 2000 primaries]]. ǀǀǀ
72
(67c) ǀǀǀ This pre-2008 John McCain dismayed industrial polluters ǀǀ by proposing ǀǀ to put
a price on emissions of global-warming gases like carbon dioxide; ǀǀ irritated his
hard-line Senate colleagues ǀǀ by offering (with Edward Kennedy) a bipartisan
immigration bill; ǀǀ and angered special interests everywhere ǀǀ by fighting ǀǀ to
reform campaign finance and the pork-ridden Army Corps of Engineers. ǀǀǀ
Here, NYT expresses its opinion about McCain, setting expectations for McCain’s future
behavior. McCain is portrayed to have behaved in a way which has caused an emotional
reaction in other people. Thus, “industrial polluters”, “Senate colleagues” and “special
interests” are Sensers in 67c, whereas McCain is the Phenomenon, which causes the reaction
in others. Note that lexical choices have an important role in these examples. Hence, in 67a,
President Bush’s legacy is described as toxic and, in 67b, his tactics are called sleazy through
premodification. These choices contribute to the negative portrayal of not only Bush, but also
of McCain.
In 67a, McCain appears as a Carrier in burdened as he is. Therefore, this editorial also
includes relational processes. Other examples of McCain in a relational clause include:
(68a) ǀǀǀ Mr. McCain’s task is [[to persuade the American people ǀǀ that [[electing him]]
will not merely mean more of President Bush’s ideology and incompetence]]. ǀǀǀ
(68b) ǀǀǀ The problem, of course, is [[that beyond a few selected issues, Mr. McCain
shares Mr. Bush’s values and opinions]]. ǀǀǀ
(68c) ǀǀǀ His drill-here, drill-now energy policies seem cut from Dick Cheney’s cloth. ǀǀǀ
His campaign tactics, too, have been replete with nasty little touches ǀǀ since he
turned his operation over to Karl Rove’s acolytes […] ǀǀǀ
In 68a, the embedded clause identifies what Mr. McCain’s task consists of. The process is
thus identifying and the Identified is the whole nominal group Mr. McCain’s task. Example
68b, on the other hand, links McCain to Mr. Bush through an attributive process in which
McCain is presented to own the same views as Bush. The two clauses in 68c are also
attributive ones. Here, McCain’s energy policies and campaign tactics are assessed through an
evaluative Attribute.
McCain also appears as a Sayer in this editorial. The two instances depict McCain as shifting
his opinion about taxation and demand a corrective to his previous statements:
73
(69a) ǀǀǀ Having once opposed Mr. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy, ǀǀ he now endorses
them. ǀǀǀ
(69b) ǀǀǀ He has to offer a detailed explanation [[of what he means by “victory” in Iraq, ǀǀ
and why continuing the Bush tax cuts would not further impoverish the country]]. ǀǀǀ
In the editorial, McCain is tightly linked to Bush and his actions (see the examples above with
burdened […] with the toxic legacies of the Bush administration; electing him will not merely
mean more of President Bush’s ideology and incompetence; Mr. McCain shares Mr. Bush’s
values and opinions and having once opposed Mr. Bush’s tax cuts). In the text, the two
Republicans are depicted to share similar values and to advocate common policies. Bush is
presented very negatively in the editorial, as in below:
Relational identifying:
(70a) ǀǀǀ But [Hurricane] Gustav’s arrival will remind Americans of one of the most
shameful chapters of the Bush presidency — its unforgivably uncaring response to
Hurricane Katrina, ǀǀ which came to symbolize the incompetence, cronyism and
ideological blindness of the Bush administration. ǀǀǀ
Material:
(70b) ǀǀǀ These many years later, Mr. Bush has made no effort [[to keep the promises [[he
made [[about addressing the deep-rooted poverty and racism [[laid bare by
Katrina]] ]] ]] ]]. ǀǀǀ
Here, Mr. Bush is first referred to in a relational identifying clause in which his actions are
analyzed as an expression of abstract features of negative (over)tones. Then, he is presented
as an Actor in a material process, showing that he has done nothing to help the
underprivileged in New Orleans/Louisiana, who were among the victims of the devastating
natural catastrophe. While the editorial portrays McCain as aware of his predecessor’s sins, he
is seen as incapable of avoiding them. In example 71, NYT presents McCain in a material
process clause as trying to eschew Bush’s legacy:
(71) ǀǀǀ That will relieve Mr. McCain [[of having to pay homage to the very man [[whose
shadow he is desperately trying to escape]] ]] […] ǀǀǀ
In this example, the adverbial desperately emphasizes NYT’s message. When it comes to
Obama, he appears in the text as a victim who is presented by NYT as completely innocent.
He is portrayed as being targeted by McCain, who is accused of untrue statements:
74
(72) ǀǀǀ His [McCain’s] campaign tactics, too, have been replete with nasty little touches
ǀǀ since he turned his operation over to Karl Rove’s acolytes, ǀǀ including
sophomoric ads about Mr. Obama’s celebrity, [[waving the flag of fear ǀǀ by saying
ǀǀ Mr. Obama wants ǀǀ to “lose” in Iraq]] and [[playing the race card ǀǀ by baselessly
accusing Mr. Obama ǀǀ of playing it]]. ǀǀǀ
Here, Obama appears as the Target of a verbal process (of accusing), while McCain is the
Sayer. In addition, NYT disapproves of McCain by portraying him as the Actor in
objectionable material processes (waving the flag of fear, playing the race card).
Throughout the editorial, a continuum from Bush to McCain is created. It is emphasized that
this connection will not be broken unless McCain changes his agenda drastically, which is
what NYT hopes to happen. McCain appears in various participant roles and process types,
material processes being the most common type. Although Obama is also mentioned in the
editorial, his role is minimal and he is seen as an innocent bystander who is bullied without
reason.
75
7 Discussion
I will now turn to consider the results of this research. First, I will address any issues related
to the ideological analysis. Then, the discussion continues with the transitivity analysis.
7.1 Ideological analysis
This study set out with the aim of analyzing persuasion in two stylistically different
newspapers that discussed presidential elections in the United States. As the quantitative
analysis and the examples above demonstrate, both NYP and NYT used van Dijk’s (1998)
strategies of positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation. These strategies were
applied to the individual candidates but the Self was also depicted positively (and the Other
negatively) through other people, both in order to defame the opponent and to praise the
newspaper’s own candidate. As the examples in section 6.2.2 illustrate, the ideological square
offered a practical tool for analyzing ideologically polarized discourse in the media.
The quantitative macro analysis showed that there was a clear difference between the two
newspapers in the self- vs. other-presentation. NYP relied on positive self-presentation much
more heavily than NYT, which backgrounded the strongly positive tones in favor of a more
objective/balanced approach. Accordingly, NYP discussed McCain positively in 78.9% of its
editorials, while NYT portrayed Obama positively in 41.7% of its editorials. Similarly, the
other-presentation was more negative in NYP than in NYT (70.0% and 54.1%, respectively).
The results thus indicated that NYP applied van Dijk’s principles of positive self-presentation
and negative other-presentation more explicitly than NYT.
In addition, it was observed that almost half of all editorials in NYP (44.9%) did not mention
the newspaper’s own candidate, McCain, at all but, instead, discussed the opponent, i.e.
Obama, extensively. As McCain was left on the background, Obama’s role in the editorial
pages grew noticeably. Therefore, it can be interpreted that the opponent was foregrounded in
NYP editorials. In NYT, there was not a considerable difference between the newspaper’s
own and the opposing candidate, although a similar tendency as in NYP was observed.
76
Table 10. The mechanisms of persuasion in two stylistically different newspapers (tabloid vs.
quality/broadsheet)
NYP NYT
Opponent’s coverage foregrounded* balanced
Other-presentation very negative negative
Self-presentation very positive relatively positive
*connections to disreputable figures, attacks on person
Table 10 illustrates these differences between the newspapers. As the table shows, NYP relied
on more sensational tactics in its writing and reference than NYT, both on its negative
argumentation against the opposing candidate as well as on its positive argumentation for the
endorsed candidate. This study, therefore, indicates that two stylistically different newspapers
use differing strategies to convey ideologically motivated messages.
However, it is unclear why NYP foregrounded the opponent so notably in its editorials. Two
possible explanations may be suggested. These are related to the style of the newspapers as
well as to external factors. First, NYP’s argumentation relied strongly on attacking the
character of the candidate(s). While both newspapers dealt with issues like the economic
rescue plan and the nuclear threat posed by Iran, NYP also discussed, for instance, Obama’s
relationship to an extremist preacher and Joe Biden’s connections to corrupt politicians. In
Aristotelian terms, this would be persuasion through ethos and, in practice, it meant defaming
Obama through his connections to suspicious figures or unrespectable organizations. NYP’s
rhetoric was thus based on attacking the character of the opponent rather than criticizing the
opponent’s political views or actions. It is easily understood that if a newspaper concentrates
on defaming an individual candidate in its writing, there is no room for issue-oriented
discussion in which both candidates could appear and their views evenhandedly presented.
Another possible explanation might be the exceptionally wide interest, in general, shown
toward Barack Obama and his candidacy as the first African-American presidential candidate
for a major party. As Obama was widely discussed elsewhere in the media, foregrounding the
Democrat may have worked as a (subconscious) counter-strategy for NYP to make its voice
77
heard and to emphasize its position on the subject.16 Thus, interdiscursivity in the media, i.e.
the tendency to react to other media actors’ actions, might explain the difference in part.
When it comes to NYT, the newspaper favored a more neutral approach to the presidential
candidates. The coverage of the candidates was fairly balanced and the self- and other-
presentation was visibly more evenhanded. It can be argued that since Obama had already
gained wide visibility in the media, NYT did not feel the need to foreground him specifically
in its writing. Foregrounding McCain, i.e. the opponent, would not have worked for NYT’s
interests either. The fact that NYT concentrated on discussing topical issues also made it
possible to discuss both candidates evenly.
All in all, NYT seemed to follow the principles of what was defined as “effective persuasion”
in the theoretical discussion above. Thus, it expressed competing positions in its editorials and
also presented other people’s opinions (Perloff 2003; Le 2006). Although NYT occasionally
arrived at similar conclusions in its editorials as NYP, the argumentation between the
newspapers differed. Thus, whereas NYP’s editorials were strongly polarized between the
endorsed and the opposing candidate, NYT managed to convey a sense of dialogue and
compromise in its texts.
7.2 Transitivity analysis
The present study was also designed to determine the effect of semantic role strategies in
persuasive discourse. The ideological square by van Dijk (1998) was used as the frame for
choosing the editorials for transitivity analysis. It was hypothesized that any differences in the
ideological analysis would show in the participant roles used by the two newspapers. Two
separate processes were detected to operate in the selection of participant roles in the
newspapers; these are discussed separately in the two sections below.
16
NYP addressed the issue overtly in one of its editorials (NYP, November 1, “Media bias made scientific”) in
which it referred to a survey by the Pew Research Center and argued that the media is writing negatively about
McCain.
78
7.2.1 Variation explained by van Dijk’s ideological square
The transitivity analysis confirmed the findings of the ideological analysis. In both
newspapers, the strategies of negative other-presentation and positive self-presentation were
used. Thus, in the editorials that discussed the newspaper’s own candidate, the opponent was
negatively presented. The only exception was text 9, in which NYT employed the strategy of
negative other-presentation only partially and even depicted the opponent positively a few
times. Interestingly, when each newspaper’s own candidate was strongly criticized (text 2 in
NYP and text 8 in NYT), the opposing candidate was not discussed in the text. It can be
argued that, by doing this, both NYP and NYT tried to background the opposing candidate.
By not referring to the opponent when criticizing the own candidate the newspapers retained
the opportunity to treat the endorsed candidate critically in the text without emphasizing the
negative attributes too much and risking a negative comparison to the opposing candidate.
This suggests that the mechanisms of van Dijk’s ideological square were in operation even
though the opponent was not mentioned at all.
In the editorials that discussed the opponent, a reverse strategy was in use. Thus, the three
editorials in each newspaper that discussed the opposing candidate, if they mentioned the
newspaper’s own candidate at all, portrayed the own candidate (solely) positively. Hence,
both NYP and NYT employed the strategy of positive self-presentation. The newspaper’s
own candidate was positively portrayed despite the stance toward the opposing candidate in
individual editorials.
Table 11. Self- and other-presentation in the editorials of NYP and NYT
NYP NYT
Editorials about Self Negative other-presentation
(texts 1, 2, 3)
Mostly negative other-
presentation (texts 7, 8, 9)
Editorials about Other Positive self-presentation
(texts 4, 5, 6)
Positive self-presentation
(texts 10, 11, 12)
NB: For NYP, the Self is McCain and the Other is Obama. For NYT, it is vice versa.
Table 11 shows in more detail how individual candidates were treated by the two newspapers.
For example, in NYP, Obama was systematically depicted negatively in those editorials that
discussed the newspaper’s own candidate (i.e. McCain). This happened whether McCain
79
himself was positively or negatively portrayed. NYP’s own candidate, McCain, on the other
hand, was systematically depicted in a favorable light in the editorials that discussed the
opponent (i.e. Obama). This held true whether Obama was positively or negatively portrayed.
Conversely, in NYT, McCain was mainly depicted negatively in those editorials that
discussed the newspaper’s own candidate (i.e. Obama), but the newspaper’s own candidate,
Obama, was depicted positively in the editorials that discussed the opponent (i.e. McCain).
An interesting aside is that both newspapers linked McCain to President Bush in their writing,
but while the linkage was portrayed as a positive thing in NYP, in NYT Bush was seen as a
burden for McCain. In addition, both newspapers tried to portray the opposing candidate as
hesitant and untrustworthy. NYP criticized Obama of shifting his opinion on various issues
and NYT accused McCain on similar grounds when discussing foreign policy (text 7). This
goes to show that even similar strategies could be used very differently by the newspapers to
present the Self positively and the Other negatively.
When it comes to participant roles, the primary object of the transitivity analysis, no
systematic differences in the use of participant roles were found when the different types of
editorials (positive, negative and divided) were compared. This means that any specific
participant role could be used for both positive and negative presentation of the presidential
candidates. For example, in the editorials that presented the newspaper’s own candidate
positively (texts 1 and 7), the endorsed candidates were depicted through material, mental and
verbal processes as capable and well-informed Actors, Sayers and Sensers. The opponents, on
the other hand, appeared in similar participant roles, but were depicted as hesitant and
uninformed Sayers and Sensers or as irresolute Actors. In addition, when the newspaper’s
own candidate was compared in different types of editorials (positive, negative, divided), no
differences were found in the choice of participant roles. Rather, each editorial employed a
similar set of participant types. The only difference between the editorials was that these
participant roles could be used varyingly to portray the Self either positively or negatively.
These findings suggest that participant roles per se were not an important factor in the
persuasive appeal of the editorials.
However, there were two instances in which participant roles seemed to be used
systematically for ideological purposes. First, NYP systematically presented the opponent,
that is, Obama, as a participant in negative verbal and material activities. In fact, all verbal
80
and material processes in which Obama appeared as the Sayer or the Actor were negative.
Hence, Obama was exclusively portrayed through unfavorable material and verbal processes,
in spite of how the newspaper’s own candidate, McCain, was treated in these texts. In NYT,
no similar strategy was used. In addition, what seemed to differ between the two newspapers
was the newspapers’ use of quotations when referring to their sources. Overall, NYP seemed
to rely more on quoting its sources, whereas NYT preferred reported speech. According to
Halliday and Matthiessen (2004: 174, 252), verbal clauses are important in news reporting as
they “allow the reporter to attribute information to sources, including officials, experts and
eye witnesses”. In this context, it is noteworthy that NYP did not present any statements from
Obama in text 1 (McCain Pos) even though the editorial was titled “Barack’s Iraq trip” and
included several quotes from McCain. Thus, it seems that NYP’s portrayal of the opposing
candidate (i.e. Obama) solely through negative material and verbal processes as well as the
lack of quotes from Obama in one of the editorials was a strategic choice that had an
ideological basis.
Second, both newspapers used a backgrounding strategy in the editorials that discussed the
opposing candidate positively (texts 4 and 10). Accordingly, in NYP, the opponent (i.e.
Obama) was only referred to circumstantially, as the Carrier or as part of a nominal group that
functioned as the Identified or the Attribute. In NYT, cooperation between the two candidates
was emphasized. Both McCain and Obama appeared in similar participant roles, but because
joint participation was highlighted in the text, any positive attributes that were assigned to the
opponent (i.e. McCain) were also assigned to NYT’s own candidate (i.e. Obama). Thus, the
positive evaluations about the opponent were suppressed by assigning the same evaluations to
the newspaper’s own candidate. Therefore, NYT’s strategy of referring to the candidates
jointly resulted in the backgrounding of the opponent.
As the above discussion shows, participant roles were variedly used in different types of
editorials in NYP and NYT (see Table 12 for a combined presentation of participant roles in
the editorials). There is no indication that individual participant roles would have been
systematically used as a persuasive device. In addition, it seems that no participant type was
systematically avoided, either, to obtain a desired persuasive effect. Rather, this study
indicates that the participant roles only became ideologically relevant when they were
examined in relation to van Dijk’s ideological square. Thus, the two examples introduced
above only reached an ideologically significant interpretation when assessed in combination
81
Table 12. Variation in participant roles between the Self and the Other in the two newspapers
NYP NYT
Process type Participant role Self Other Self Other
Material Actor x x x x
Goal x
Mental Senser x x x x
Phenomenon x
Attributive Carrier x x x x
Attribute x x x
Identifying Identified x x x
Identifier x x x
Behavioral Behaver x
Behaviour
Verbal Sayer x x x x
Target x
Existential Existent x x
Beneficiary x x x
Range
Circumstantials x x x
NB: For NYP, the Self is McCain and the Other is Obama. For NYT, it
is the reverse, i.e. the Self is Obama and the Other is McCain.
with van Dijk’s principles of positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation.
However, it should be noted that the sample of analyzable texts was rather small, and some
systematic differences might have appeared in a larger sample.
7.2.2 Variation explained by other factors
In addition to van Dijk’s ideological square, at least two other factors were detected that could
affect the occurrence of participant roles in NYP and NYT. First, variation in participant roles
was dependent on how often each candidate was referred to in the text. Second, the
complexity of syntax and clause structures in the two newspapers seemed to affect the use of
participant roles.
As suggested above, the extent in which each candidate was discussed in the editorials
affected the number of participant roles used. Therefore, each candidate appeared in more
roles in those editorials that discussed the specific candidate. In addition, the opposing
candidate always appeared in fewer roles than the candidate that was mainly discussed in the
82
text. This pattern applied to both newspapers and did not depend on the candidate in question.
As such, these results seem rather self-explanatory, since it seems only natural that if a
particular candidate is mentioned often in any particular text, he is more likely to be portrayed
through various participant roles than the candidate that is not discussed so much.
However, the results also suggest that variation could result from differences in syntax and
clause structures. First, more participant types were used in NYT than in NYP. Thus, the
NYT editorials included participant roles, such as the Goal, Phenomenon and Target, which
were not used by NYP when discussing the presidential candidates. Interestingly, it was
McCain who appeared in the roles of the Goal and the Phenomenon. It should be noted,
however, that these participant roles were used in both positive and negative commentaries
about McCain and, therefore, there is no indication that these roles would have been used
ideologically to represent McCain in a certain way. On the other hand, only Obama appeared
as the Target. The intention was clearly to portray Obama as a victim of a verbal assault,
whereas McCain was depicted as the assailant and, consequently, as a Sayer. However, one
instance is not enough to interpret the structure as ideologically motivated.
Second, the transitivity analysis showed that NYT used relational processes more extensively
in its writing than NYP. While material, mental and relational processes are the most common
types of process in language as a whole, their frequencies vary depending on the register
(Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 248). In general, relational processes are extensively used in
many highly valued registers (e.g. scientific, administrative and legal). However, they can be
used in any kind of texts to achieve ambiguity, and this is regularly the case in many registers,
such as in political rhetoric (Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 247). In this case, the
explanation may be NYT’s status as the quality newspaper, which is reflected in the syntax
and clause structures of the newspaper.
All in all, the results indicate that NYT used both qualitatively and quantitatively richer
transitivity structures than NYP. A possible explanation for this may be stylistic and register
differences (differences in formality) between the two newspapers. NYT seems to employ
more complex syntax and clause structures in its writing, and this may have triggered the
choice between different process and participant types. Therefore, the differences in
transitivity structure between NYP and NYT seem to be explained at least in part by the
stylistic differences in the two newspapers, rather than by some systematic ideological
83
choices concerning different experiential categories or individual candidates. However, as
already stated above, this study does not offer enough material for systematic comparison
between individual participant roles and, therefore, no systematic differences in participant
types between individual candidates in the two newspapers or between the newspaper’s own
and the opposing candidate were found.
84
8 Conclusion
This study has revealed some of the strategies through which newspapers try to influence
people’s opinions. As demonstrated by the quantitative/ideological analysis, the two
newspapers differed considerably at the macro level of analysis. Both newspapers employed
the strategies of positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation, but NYT seemed
more balanced in its discussion of the candidates. NYP, on the other hand, not only
foregrounded the opponent and discussed him very negatively, but also referred to the
endorsed candidate extremely positively. This could reflect the differing nature of the two
newspapers. NYT as the so-called quality newspaper seemed to prefer a more balanced
position toward the candidates while NYP relied on more sensational tactics in its editorial
writing.
The results as to the transitivity analysis were somewhat more inconclusive. The analysis
showed similar patterns in use in both newspapers under investigation. Both newspapers used
various participant roles in their editorials, and each role could be used for both positive and
negative representation. The more a particular candidate was discussed in an individual text,
the more varied the process types used were. Conversely, if a particular candidate was not the
main referent in the text, then the opposing candidate appeared in more participant roles.
However, NYT consistently used more varied roles in its editorials than NYP, which may hint
toward the interpretation that NYT as a quality newspaper used a more complex syntax and
clause structures, which would explain the differences.
Although there were clear differences between the newspapers in the discussion of the
newspapers’ own and the opposing candidate, it is unclear whether this was due to differences
in the transitivity structures. Therefore, the findings of this study do not support the previous
research in which a link between participant roles and ideological discourse organization has
been established. Rather, other (linguistic) elements, such as choices in modality, seem to
have contributed to the persuasive appeal of the editorials, which questions the usefulness of
this type of analysis in this kind of research. The method is time-consuming and demands a
lot from the researcher as the central element in the system of transitivity is the idea of
intricate nesting patterns (processes) inside each other. This means that the more complex the
clause structures are, the more difficult it becomes to analyze the different elements according
85
to the classification offered by the transitivity theory. In addition, as the abstractness of the
clausal elements grows, determining the process types becomes more exacting. This is why I
found it somewhat challenging to interpret the results.
In order to conduct future research on the topic, a larger sample of texts (for transitivity
analysis) is needed to obtain consistent and reliable results. It is also necessary to consider
whether there were too many variables in this study. Two candidates, both newspapers
endorsing a different candidate as well as the stylistic differences between the two newspapers
may have contributed unfavorably to the results. Therefore, if further studies are carried out,
these variables need to be better taken into account.
Based on this analysis, a possible research subject for future research could be the use of
verbal processes in editorials, and especially the choice between direct and indirect speech,
that is, quotes vs. reports, to present information from different sources. Another line of
research could concentrate on the use of relational processes. The interrelationship between
relational processes and style/register, on the one hand, and relational processes and
persuasion, on the other, might offer valuable results on the importance of semantic roles as a
discursive device. It is also evident that this study would have benefited from a stronger
linkage to other levels of linguistic analysis; therefore, the analysis of other aspects of
persuasive discourse, such as choices in modality, collocations and rhetorical devices, could
be conducted in the future with the same set of data.
86
References
Alameda-Hernández, Á. (2006). The Discursive Construction of Gibraltarian Identity in the
Printed Press: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Editorial Articles on the Gibraltar Issue.
Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Granada. Available online:
http://hera.ugr.es/tesisugr/16077507.pdf [Accessed 26 November 2012].
Alameda-Hernández, Á. (2008). “Discursive strategies in the construction of national identity:
a critical discourse analysis of the Gibraltar issue in the printed media”. National
Identities 10(2), 225–35. Available online:
http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy.uef.fi:2048/doi/pdf/10.1080/14608940801999156
[Accessed 15 October 2012].
Andersen, K. (1971). Persuasion: Theory and Practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Aristotle. (1991). On Rhetoric: a Theory of Civic Discourse (trans. G. A. Kennedy). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Bell, A. (2006). “News language”. In Brown, K. (ed.), 615–7.
Bettinghaus, E. P. and M. J. Cody. (1987). Persuasive Communication (4th
Edition). New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Brown, K. (ed.). (2006). Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd
Edition). Oxford:
Elsevier. Available online:
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.uef.fi:2048/science/referenceworks/97800804485
41 [Accessed 9 December 2011].
Chen, L. (2007). “Negatives and positives in the language of politics: attitudes towards
authority in the British and Chinese press”. Journal of Language and Politics 6(3), 475–
501.
Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing Political Discourse. New York: Routledge.
Chilton, P. and C. Schäffner. (1997). “Discourse and politics”. In van Dijk, T. A. (ed.),
Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Volume 2: Discourse as Social
Interaction. London: Sage, 206–30.
Cumming, S. and T. Ono. (1997). “Discourse and grammar”. In van Dijk, T. A. (ed.), 112–
137.
Durán, J. M. (2008). “The analysis of political discourse applied to Bush’s and Kerry’s
speeches”. In Nørgaard, N. (ed.), Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use. Odense
Working Papers in Language and Communication vol. 29, 267–82. Available online:
http://static.sdu.dk/mediafiles//Files/Om_SDU/Institutter/ISK/Forskningspublikationer/O
WPLC/Nr29/Jose%20Manuel%20Duran.pdf [Accessed 18 September 2012].
Fairclough, N. (1995). Media Discourse. London: Edward Arnold.
Fowler, R. (1985). “Power”. In van Dijk, T. A. (ed.), 61–82.
Gill, A. M. and K. Whedbee. (1997). “Rhetoric”. In van Dijk, T. A. (ed.), 157–184.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. and C. M. I. M. Matthiessen. (2004). An Introduction to Functional
Grammar (3rd
Edition). London: Hodder Education.
Halmari, H. and T. Virtanen (eds). (2005a). Persuasion Across Genres. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Halmari, H. and T. Virtanen. (2005b). “Towards understanding modern persuasion”. In
Halmari, H. and T. Virtanen (eds) (2005a), 229–44.
Jahedi, M. and F. S. Abdullah. (2012). “The ideological construction of Iran in the NYT”.
Australian Journal of Linguistics 32(3), 361–81. Available online:
http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy.uef.fi:2048/doi/pdf/10.1080/07268602.2012.70557
9 [Accessed 15 October 2012].
87
Joseph, J. E. (2006). “Identity and language”. In Brown, K. (ed.), 486–92. Available online:
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.uef.fi:2048/science/article/pii/B00804485420128
39 [Accessed 3 January 2012].
Kress, G. (1985). “Ideological structures in discourse”. In van Dijk, T. A. (ed.), 27–42.
Krizsán, A. (2011). “The EU is Not Them, But Us!”: The First Person Plural and the
Articulation of Collective Identities in European Political Discourse. Newcastle:
Cambridge Scholars.
Le, E. (2006). The Spiral of ‘Anti-Other Rhetoric’. Discourses of Identity and the
International Media Echo. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Li, J. (2011). “Collision of language in news discourse: A functional-cognitive perspective on
transitivity”. Critical Discourse Studies 8(3), 203–19. Available online:
http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy.uef.fi:2048/doi/pdf/10.1080/17405904.2011.58623
1 [Accessed 15 October 2012].
McKay, S. (2006). “Media and language: overview”. In Brown, K. (ed.), 597–602.
Nacos, B. L. (1990). The Press, Presidents and Crises. New York: Columbia University
Press.
O’Keefe, D. J. (1990). Persuasion: Theory and Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Oktar, L. (2001). “The ideological organization of representational processes in the
presentation of us and them”. Discourse & Society 12(3), 313–46. Available online:
http://das.sagepub.com.ezproxy.uef.fi:2048/content/12/3/313.full.pdf+html [Accessed 19
April 2012].
Perloff, R. M. (2003). The Dynamics of Persuasion: Communication and Attitudes in the 21st
Century (2nd
Edition). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Richardson, J. E. (2007). Analysing Newspapers: An Approach from Critical Discourse
Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ryder, M. E. (2006). “Transitivity: stylistics approaches”. In Brown, K. (ed.), 40–6. Available
online:
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.uef.fi:2048/science/article/pii/B00804485420056
17 [Accessed 9 December 2011].
Smith, M. J. (1982). Persuasion and Human Action: A Review and Critique of Social
Influence Theories. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Sornig, K. (1989). “Some remarks on linguistic strategies of persuasion”. In Wodak, R. (ed.),
Language, Power and Ideology: Studies in Political Discourse. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, 95–113.
Tajfel, H. (1978). “Social categorization, social identity and social comparison”. In Tajfel, H.
(ed.), Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of
Intergroup Relations. London: Academic Press, 61–76.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H. and J. C. Turner. (1979). “An integrative theory of inter-group conflict”. In Austin,
W. G. and S. Worchel (eds), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey,
CA: Brooks/Cole, 33–47.
Turner, J. C., M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher and M. J. Wetherell. (1987).
Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
van Dijk, T. A. (1991). “Media contents: the interdisciplinary study of news as discourse”. In
Bruhn-Jensen, K. and N. Jankowski (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Methods in Mass
Communication Research. London: Routledge, 108–20.
van Dijk, T. A. (1995). “Discourse analysis as ideology analysis”. In Schäffner, C. and A.
Wenden (eds), Language and Peace. Aldershot: Dartmouth, 17–33. Available online:
88
http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Discourse%20analysis%20as%20ideology%20an
alysis.pdf [Accessed 20 January 2012].
van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage. Available
online: http://www.discourses.org/OldBooks/Teun%20A%20van%20Dijk%20-
%20Ideology.pdf [Accessed 21 February 2012].
van Dijk, T. A. (2006). “Politics, ideology, and discourse”. In Brown, K. (ed.), 728–40.
van Dijk, T. A. (ed.). (1985). Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Volume 4: Discourse Analysis
in Society. London: Academic Press.
van Dijk, T. A. (ed.). (1997). Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Volume 1:
Discourse as Structure and Process. London: Sage.
van Leeuwen, T. (2006). “Critical discourse analysis”. In Brown, K. (ed.), 290–4.
Van Valin, R. D. Jr. (2006). “Functional relations”. In Brown, K. (ed.), 683–96.
Virtanen, T. (2005). “‘Polls and surveys show’: Public opinion as a persuasive device in
editorial discourse”. In Halmari, H. and T. Virtanen (eds) (2005a), 153–80.
Virtanen, T. and H. Halmari. (2005). “Persuasion across genres: emerging perspectives”. In
Halmari, H. and T. Virtanen (eds) (2005a), 3–24.
Widdowson, H. G. (2004). Text, Context, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis.
Malden: Blackwell.
Wodak, R. (2001a). “What CDA is about – a summary of its history, important concepts and
its developments”. In Wodak, R. and M. Meyer (eds), 1–13.
Wodak, R. (2001b). “The discourse-historical approach”. In Wodak, R. and M. Meyer (eds),
63–94.
Wodak, R. and M. Meyer (eds). (2001). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London:
Sage.
Appendix 1: List of analyzed editorials of The New York Post (NYP)
No. Editorial Date of publication Topic
1 Hillary’s historic run June 4, 2008 Ms. Clinton’s defeat in the
primaries
2 Obama’s next challenge June 5 Obama’s political career so far
3 Barack’s bad buds June 8 Obama’s connections to a
corrupt Chicago businessman
4 Obama’s bus June 12 Obama’s connections to
scheming businessmen
5 McCain’s oil wrong June 14 McCain’s poor rhetoric and his
views on oil drilling
6 Smearing Bush June 15 Bush’s possible impeachment
over Iraq war
7 John Kerry lite June 19 Obama’s naive views on
national security
8 Ever-changing “change” June 21 Obama’s changing political
views
9 Obama, adrift June 28 Obama’s changing political
views
10 Obama moves on July 1 Obama’s hypocrisy
11 Barack’s buddies’ ugly
politics July 2
Obama’s/Democrats’ dismissal
of McCain’s history in the
military
12 Bubba’s smear July 8 Bill Clinton’s disrespect for
McCain
13 Impeachment Kabuki July 14 Democrats’ failure in
impeaching Bush
14 The fog of politics July 16 Candidates’ plans for
Afghanistan
15 Barack’s Iraq trip July 19
The success in Iraq and
McCain’s correct judgment on
this
16 Denver’s high-class homeless July 20
Star treatment of the homeless
in Denver during Democratic
National Convention
17 Blue paper’s red pencil July 22 The New York Times’s denial of
McCain’s Iraq rejoinder
18 Obama abroad July 23
Obama taking too big a role in
his trips to Iraq and
Afghanistan
19 Barack’s Berlin test July 24 Obama’s visit to Berlin
20 All pro-drilling now? August 5 Obama’s changing views on oil
drilling
21 Dems pumping hypocrisy August 6
Democrats officially anti-
offshore oil drilling, in secret
pro-drilling
22 The Georgia test August 15 Candidates and the war in
Georgia
23 Great debates, not August 21 The dispassionate presidential
debates
24 Bam’s mile-high moment August 25 National convention of the
Democrats
25 A “no thanks” for Charlie August 26 Obama’s refusal of election
money
26 What song will she sing? August 26 Ms. Clinton’s official
withdrawal from the campaign
27 An American wife August 26 Michelle Obama’s speech at the
national convention
28 The Rezko ticket August 27
Obama’s and Joe Biden’s
connections to corrupt
businessmen
29 Credibility gap August 28 Democrats lacking credibility
concerning national security
30 Jimmy’s new low August 29 Jimmy Carter’s comment on
McCain’s military service
31 The dream affirmed August 29 Obama’s formal acceptance of
party nomination
32 North to Alaska August 30 Sarah Palin as the candidate for
vice president
33 Iran’s most useful idiot? September 2 Joe Biden’s naive views on Iran
34 Joe Biden’s moonbat moment September 5 Obama-Biden approach to
criminal charges against Bush
35 The security difference September 5
McCain’s nomination and
national security (Dems vs.
GOP)
36 Outraged “organizers” September 6 Obama and Palin belittling each
other; ACORN
37 Post endorses John McCain September 8 NYP endorses McCain
38 No more 9/11s September 11 Candidates’ views on “War on
Terror”
39 Well, he did warn us September 11 Obama “playing dirty”
40 Obama’s terrorist pal September 15 Obama and William Ayers
41 The wrong RX for Wall St. September 18 Democrats’ role in the
economic crisis
42 Obama v. New York September 19 Obama’s tax plan
43 Dems diss Palin, Israel September 20 Ms. Clinton and the Democrats’
partisan politics
44 A feast amid the crisis September 21 Obama’s fundraising dinner
disapproved
45 Looking for leadership September 24 Economic crisis and need for
actions
46 Main Street’s pain September 25
Bush’s economic rescue plan
and crisis meeting with
candidates
47 Fixing what politics broke September 26 Economy and crisis meeting in
Washington
48 Shocked! September 27 Reaching a deal or not at the
crisis meeting?
49 Round one: McCain September 28 The first presidential debate
50 The Meltdown’s ACORN September 29 ACORN and Obama among the
culprits for financial crisis
51 …But Obama does fine October 5 Teacher unions’ support for
Obama
52 A case McCain must make October 6 McCain “needs to tell the truth”
about Obama
53 An unenlightening night October 8 The second presidential debate
54 Obama’s (lucky?) break October 8 Rezko trial postponed, on
purpose?
55 Putting on Ayers October 8
Obama’s relation to the 60s
Weathermen terrorist Bill
Ayers
56 Vote-fraud-a-go-go October 9 ACORN voter-registration
fraud
57 Enter the race card October 10 Democrats “playing the race
card”
58 Bam’s vote-fraud buddies October 11 ACORN scandal expands
59 Obama’s hot Ayers October 13 Obama’s connections to Bill
Ayers
60 Ready, set…spend! October 14 Economy rescue plan and who
will pay for it
61 Vote fraud: send in the feds October 15 ACORN scandal expands
62 Obama tells the tax truth October 15 Obama going to raise taxes of
middle class
63 The Rev. Jackson’s non-denial October 16
Jesse Jackson’s comment on
American policy concerning
Israel criticized
64 Lessons from the plumber October 16 The final presidential debate
65 The plumber’s crime October 17 “Joe the Plumber” under attack
66 Vote-theft, ACORN-style October 18 ACORN under investigation by
FBI
67 Joe Biden’s fears October 21 Biden predicting that the world
will test inexperienced Obama
68 Obama’s education idiocy October 22 Obama involvement in teaching
“Afrocentrism” in school
69 A few bad apples? October 25 30 percent of ACORN voting
forms rejected
70 Barney’s big mouth October 27 Rep. Frank hinting at quick exit
from Iraq
71 Barack’s supreme goal October 28
Obama’s tax plan as
redistribution of wealth
criticized
72 Fair warning October 29 Biden foot-in-mouth/Obama
going to raise taxes
73 Sarah stood tall October 29 Palin’s anti-corruption work
endorsed
74 The Obama tape October 30 Obama’s connection to a
Palestinian apologist
75 Media bias made scientific November 1
According to a survey, media
writing negatively about
McCain
76 Out-taxing Europe November 2 American taxation more
redistributive than European
77 At stake tomorrow November 3 Why not to choose Obama;
endorsing McCain
78 Today’s the day November 4 Historical elections; start
voting!
Appendix 2: List of analyzed editorials of The New York Times (NYT)
NB: The following abbreviations have been used for special types of editorials:
EO = Editorial Observer, EN = Editorial Notebook and EIO = Editorial ǀ In Office
No. Editorial Date of publication Topic
1 The great immigration panic June 3, 2008 America’s “war” on illegal
immigration
2 It’s over. Now it begins. June 5 Democratic primaries over,
what next?
3 It’s so much nicer on K Street June 6 Lobbyists acting in the
Congress
4
Europe fears a post-Bush
unilateralism, this time on
trade (EO)
June 7 Economic protectionism not the
solution for America
5 Primary reforms June 8 Nominating processes should
be improved
6 Threatening Iran June 10 Iran’s growing nuclear threat
and what to do about it
7 Another failure on climate
change June 11
Discussing the bill to prevent
climate change
8 Are Washington insiders
necessary? June 13
Obama, McCain and the
lobbyists
9 A moment of clarity in
Baghdad June 14
Bush’s and McCain’s views on
withdrawal from Iraq
10 Foreclosures and the election June 15
McCain’s and Obama’s
solutions to home mortgage
crisis
11 Mr. Bush v. the Bill of Rights June 18
Government’s right to intercept
its citizens’
telecommunications
12 Public funding on the ropes June 20 Private financing in the
elections questioned
13 Snuggling up to the bundlers June 26
Obama accepting money from
special-interest donors in his
campaign
14 The Air Force’s tanker mess June 29
Reasons for redoing the
competition for Air Force
tankers
15
Thinking the unthinkable: a
world without nuclear
weapons (EO)
June 30
America should adopt a policy
encouraging nuclear weapon-
free world
16 New and not improved July 4 Obama’s changing views
17 Lots to look into July 7 Election fund-raising and
McCain under scrutiny
18 Where do we go from here? July 7 Withdrawal from Iraq and the
war in Afghanistan
19 Compromising the
Constitution July 8
The bill to intercept citizens’
telecommunications should be
rejected
20 There he goes again July 12 McCain’s unrealistic tax cuts
21 Talking sense on Iraq July 17 Withdrawal from Iraq and the
war in Afghanistan
22 Debating from the domestic
front July 23
Accepting Google’s offer on
New Orleans debate or not?
23 As rebates run their course July 27 Criticizing the refund program
to end the economic crisis
24 Low-road express July 30 McCain’s lowdown rhetoric
25 The United States v. the driver August 10 Guantánamo policies distorted
26 Energy fictions August 10 Obama’s solution to rising fuel
prices
27 Baleful bundlers August 11 Private funding in the elections
28 Contemplations on being of
mixed race in America (EO) August 11 USA practicing racial slotting
29 The hands that feed them August 21 Presidential conventions’
private funding criticized
30 What the voters know August 24 The candidates’ cures for
economic crisis
31 Mr. Obama’s task August 25 What Obama needs to do to
win the presidency
32 The good fighter August 26 Ms. Clinton should show her
support for Obama
33 On politics, women and
generational anxiety (EN) August 27
Michelle Obama in the
spotlight
34 So far over the line August 27 Denigrating advertising
campaigns
35 Mr. Obama’s moment August 28
The Clintons endorse Obama at
Democratic National
Convention
36 Mr. Obama’s party August 29 Obama’s acceptance speech
and the party profile
37 Senator McCain’s choice August 30 McCain’s choice of Palin as
vice-presidential candidate
38 John McCain’s challenge September 1 What McCain must do to win
the presidency
39 Mr. McCain and Iraq September 1 McCain needs to clarify his
stance on Iraq
40 Candidate McCain’s big
decision September 3
McCain and Palin’s
qualifications
41 Lives of the party (EN) September 4 Moderate Republicans vs. anti-
abortionists
42 Running against themselves September 4
McCain needs to make his
views clear during GOP
convention
43 The real John McCain September 5 McCain having two sides
44 John McCain’s energy follies September 7 Global warming, oil crisis and
McCain’s views on them
45 Real life economy September 8 How to fix the economy
46 Still no exit September 10 Withdrawal from Iraq
47 In search of Gov. Palin September 11
Palin needs to explain her
qualifications in a proper news
conference
48 A message from John McCain September 12 Scurrilous ad by Republicans to
defame Obama
49 Gov. Palin’s worldview September 13 Palin as vice president and what
it tells about McCain
50 The spirit of public service September 13 9/11 remembrance speeches to
support volunteer work
51 Consumer protection September 14
Candidates should support
Credit Cardholders’ Bill of
Rights
52 Mr. McCain and the economy September 17 McCain not realistic about the
financial crisis
53 Immigration deception September 19
Candidates lying about
opponent’s stance on
immigration
54 Right to smear September 21 Attack ad against Obama’s
abortion policy
55 The candidates and the court
(EIO) September 21
Speculating candidates’ choices
for Supreme Court justices
56 Barack Obama, John McCain
and the language of race (EO) September 22
“Language of race” visible in
comments about Obama
57 Trust me September 23 The government’s bailout plan
reviewed
58 Absence of leadership September 25 McCain and Obama need to
step in to restore the economy
59 I’m your pastor, and I
approved this ad September 27
Ministers want to endorse a
presidential candidate during
sermon
60 The first debate September 27 The first presidential debate
61 The vice-presidential debate October 3 Palin’s unsuccessful first debate
and what it tells about McCain
62 Scraping the bottom October 6 Attack ads by independent
political action groups
63 The crisis agenda October 7 Candidates’ solutions to
financial crisis
64 Politics of attack October 8 McCain’s dirty tactics in
politics
65 Nearing the end October 9 Withdrawing from Iraq
66 One man’s crony… October 9 McCain criticizing Obama and
the lobbyists
67 Up and down the learning
curve October 12
Obama’s and McCain’s views
on energy issues
68 The final debate October 16 McCain lost on almost every
issue during the final debate
69 The Acorn story October 17 McCain accusing Acorn of
large-scale vote fraud
70 Questions about their health October 21 Candidates’ health records
71 More sadness for Appalachia October 21 Mountaintop removals
destroying the environment
72 Only half a bailout October 22 Bailouts insufficient solution to
financial crisis
73 Barack Obama for President October 23 NYT endorses Obama
74 The candidates’ health plans
(EIO) October 28 Candidates’ health plans
75 Now, the $2 billion campaign October 31 Criticizing candidates’
campaign funding
76 Ms. Palin’s same old, same
old October 31 Palin’s view on energy issues
77 Shepard the Anchor November 1 McCain and “Joe the Plumber”
against Obama
78 Who is in the middle? (EN) November 2 “Middle class” in candidates’
terminology
79 New beltway debate: what to
do about Iran (EO) November 3
The options to prevent Iran
from developing a nuclear
weapon
80 The soiled envelope, please November 3 Political attack ads
Appendix 3: Ideological orientation toward the Self and the Other in NYP and NYT (with the
categories “unclassifiable” and “no mention”)
No. of
editorials
(%)
Self Other
Pos Neg Div Unclass No
mention Pos Neg Div Unclass
No
mention
NYP 30
(38.5)
2
(2.6)
6
(7.7)
5
(6.4)
35
(44.9)
2
(2.6)
49
(62.8)
19
(24.4)
3
(3.8)
5
(6.4)
NYT 25
(31.3)
11
(13.8)
24
(30.0)
9
(11.3)
11
(13.8)
6
(7.5)
40
(50.0)
28
(35.0)
2
(2.5)
4
(5.0)
NB: For NYP, the Self is McCain and the Other is Obama. For NYT, it is vice versa.
FINNISH SUMMARY
Yhdysvaltain presidentinvaalit vuonna 2008 herättivät poikkeuksellisen paljon kiinnostusta
niin kotimaassaan kuin ulkomailla. Vaalit olivat monessa mielessä historialliset, ja erityisesti
Barack Obaman ehdokkuus sai runsaasti huomiota maailmanlaajuisesti. Koska medialla on
huomattavaa valtaa tiedonvälittäjänä, yhteiskunnallisena toimijana ja poliittisena
kommentaattorina, halusin tarkastella, miten media – tässä tapauksessa printtimedia – käytti
valtaansa ja otti osaa keskusteluun presidentinvaaleihin liittyvissä teemoissa. Miten kaksi
sanomalehteä, jotka julistautuivat vastaehdokkaiden tukijoiksi, pyrkivät vaikuttamaan
lukijoihin ja mitä keinoja ne käyttivät tuodakseen oman ehdokkaansa esiin mahdollisimman
myönteisessä valossa?
Tutkimuksessa tarkastelun kohteeksi valittiin kahden yhdysvaltalaissanomalehden, The New
York Postin (NYP) ja The New York Timesin (NYT), pääkirjoitukset. Lehdet kannattivat
vuoden 2008 presidentinvaaleissa eri ehdokkaita: NYP tuki republikaanisen puolueen John
McCainia ja NYT demokraattien Barack Obamaa. Tutkimuskysymykset hahmottuivat
suostuttelun ja ideologian teemojen kautta. Suostuttelulla viitataan tässä yhteydessä
symboliseen prosessiin, jossa viestijä pyrkii vaikuttamaan yleisön mielipiteisiin tai
käyttäytymiseen niin, että vastaanottajilla on vapaus toimia myös vastoin viestijän tarkoitusta
(Perloff 2003: 8; Virtanen ja Halmari 2005: 3). Ideologialla sen sijaan tarkoitetaan ryhmien tai
muiden yhteisöjen jakamia poliittisia tai sosiaalisia aate- tai arvojärjestelmiä (van Dijk 1998:
3). Van Dijkin mukaan ideologiaa rakennetaan usein diskurssissa, ja siksi tarkasteltavana
olivat ne kielen piirteet, jotka potentiaalisesti kertoisivat jotain olennaista ideologian
välittämisestä suostuttelevissa teksteissä. Tarkempana tutkimuskohteena olivat sosiaalisten
ryhmien tasolla ilmenevä ihmisten jaottelu sisäryhmiin (me) ja ulkoryhmiin (ne) (van Dijk
1998) sekä tätä luokittelua ja ideologisia valintoja diskurssissa potentiaalisesti ilmentävät
semanttiset roolit (Halliday 1985; Halliday ja Matthiessen 2004).
Sosiaaliset ryhmät ja ideologian rakentuminen diskurssissa
Sosiaalipsykologi Henri Tajfel (1978, 1981) on tutkinut asenteita, ryhmäidentiteettiä ja
stereotypioita. Hänen havaintonsa on, että sosiaaliset ryhmät rakentuvat suhteessa toisiin
ryhmiin, jolloin muodostuu sisäryhmiä (ingroup) ja ulkoryhmiä (outgroup). Sosiaalisiin
ryhmiin kohdistuvia stereotypioita syntyy, kun omaan ryhmään liitetään sellaisia attribuutteja,
jotka eroavat ulkoryhmään liitetyistä attribuuteista (Tajfel 1981: 115). Lopulta kumpaankin
ryhmään liitetyt attribuutit vahvistuvat ja ilmenevät sisäryhmän suosimisena ja ulkoryhmän
syrjintänä. Tajfelin teoria tunnetaan sosiaalipsykologiassa sosiaalisen identiteetin teoriana.
Myös van Dijk (1998) hyödyntää ryhmien vastakkainasetteluihin nojaavaa perusajatusta
teoriassaan ideologioiden synnystä. Hänen mukaansa ideologioilla on keskeinen rooli
sosiaalisten ryhmien rakentumisessa, mutta toisaalta eri ryhmien vastakkainasettelulla on
myös tärkeä rooli ideologioiden muodostumisessa: Ryhmät muodostuvat jaettujen
ideologisten käsitysten varaan, jotka eroavat muiden, kilpailevien ryhmien käsityksistä.
Samaan aikaan ryhmien välinen kilpailuasetelma synnyttää ja ruokkii ideologioita ja auttaa
ylläpitämään niitä. Näin ollen ryhmäsuhteet ovat tärkeä ideologioiden olemassaoloon
vaikuttava tekijä. Toisaalta ideologiat synnyttävät tiettyjä sosiaalisia käytäntöjä, jotka taas
ylläpitävät ryhmien välisiä suhteita. Kyseessä on täten toinen toistaan ruokkiva kuvio.
Van Dijkin mukaan ryhmäidentiteetit ja ideologiat rakentuvat usein diskursiivisesti.
Diskurssin avulla luodaan ja ylläpidetään ryhmäsuhteita. Van Dijk esittää, että vetoamalla eri
ryhmien välisiin eroihin ja hyödyntämällä vastakkainasettelua voidaan saavuttaa oman
ryhmän kannalta mieluisa lopputulos. Tätä asetelmaa van Dijk (1998: 267) kuvaa ideologisen
neliön avulla. Neliö koostuu seuraavasta neljästä strategiasta, joilla pyritään tilanteesta
riippuen joko korostamaan tai häivyttämään tiettyjä ryhmän ominaisuuksia:
1 Korosta oman ryhmän (me) positiivisia puolia
2 Häivytä oman ryhmän (me) negatiivisia puolia
3 Korosta vastustajan (ne) negatiivisia puolia
4 Häivytä vastustajan (ne) positiivisia puolia
Nämä kognitiiviset makrostrategiat jäsentävät ryhmien keskinäistä kanssakäymistä ja ovat
tärkeitä ryhmäidentiteetin rakentajia. Ne voidaan nähdä suostuttelun välineinä diskurssissa.
Semanttiset roolit
Semanttiset roolit ovat kielen funktionaalisia suhteita, jotka ilmenevät predikaatin ja
argumenttien välillä (Van Valin 2006: 683). Semanttisten roolien avulla voidaan tarkastella,
kuinka kielessä kuvataan ja luokitellaan maailmaa, sen tapahtumia ja ilmiöitä. Keskeistä on
ymmärtää, että yksittäinen reaalimaailman tapahtuma tai toiminta voidaan esittää kielessä
useilla tavoilla, jolloin samakin ilmiö voi realisoitua kielen kautta eri tavoin.
Semanttisten roolien on useaan otteeseen osoitettu toimivan diskursseissa ideologian
rakennuspalikoina. Niiden avulla voidaan osoittaa puhujan tai kirjoittajan suhtautumista
viestimäänsä asiaan, ja esimerkiksi Cumming ja Ono (1997) viittaavat tutkimustuloksiin,
joiden mukaan tekijän tai subjektin rooli kertoo siitä, keneen viestijä tekstissään samaistuu tai
ketä hän pitää vastuunalaisena.
Eri teoriat käyttävät semanttisista rooleista eri nimityksiä, mutta Hallidayn (1985; Halliday ja
Matthiessen 2004) systeemis-funktionaalisessa kieliteoriassa, jota hyödynnän omassa
analyysissäni, rooleista puhutaan osallistujarooleina. Yksinkertaisimmillaan ne kuvaavat ”sitä,
mitä joku teki jollekin” (Van Valin 2006: 683). Hallidayn transitiivisuusteoriassa keskeisiä
semanttisia kategorioita ovat osallistujien lisäksi prosessit ja olosuhteet. Täten kussakin
tapahtumassa voi aina olla läsnä kolme semanttista elementtiä: prosessi, joka kuvaa
tapahtumia ja toimintaa verbiryhmien kautta; osallistujat, jotka ilmentävät prosesseissa
mukana olevia toimijoita ja osapuolia nominiryhmien avulla; sekä olosuhteet, jotka antavat
lisätietoa tapahtumasta – esimerkiksi sen tapahtumapaikasta tai -ajankohdasta –
prepositiolausekkeiden ja adverbiaalien muodossa.
Halliday jakaa kielessä ilmenevät prosessit kuuteen eri luokkaan. Näitä ovat materiaaliset,
mentaaliset ja relationaaliset prosessit sekä käyttäytymiseen liittyvät, verbaaliset ja
eksistentiaaliset prosessit. Materiaaliset prosessit ovat toiminnan ja tekemisen prosesseja,
joissa osallistujina ovat (aktiivinen) tekijä (Actor) ja (passiivinen) tekemisen kohde (Goal).
Materiaaliset prosessit ilmentävät ulkoista maailmaa ja sen tapahtumia tai ilmiöitä.
Mentaaliset prosessit sen sijaan ovat tuntemisen, ajattelun ja havaitsemisen prosesseja, jotka
ilmentävät sisäistä maailmaa ja tietoisuutta. Mentaalisten prosessien osallistujat ovat kokija
(Senser) sekä aistimisen kohteena oleva ilmiö (Phenomenon). Olemista ja asiaintiloja
kuvaavat relationaaliset prosessit. Niissä osallisina on aina kaksi osallistujaa, jotka ovat joko
attributiivisessa tai identifioivassa suhteessa toisiinsa. Relationaalisten prosessien avulla
voidaan kuvata ja luokitella asioita, ilmaista omistussuhteita ja määritellä ja identifioida
ilmiöitä. Ne realisoituvat kopulalauseina, joiden toisena jäsenenä on predikatiivikomplementti
tai adverbiaali. Relationaalisten prosessien osallistujat ovat attributiivisessa alatyypissä
attribuution kohde (Carrier) ja attribuutti (Attribute) ja identifioivassa alatyypissä
identifioinnin kohde (Identified) ja identifioija (Identifier).
Edellä mainittujen kolmen pääprosessityypin lisäksi on olemassa kolme päätyyppien
välimaastoon sijoittuvaa prosessityyppiä. Käyttäytymiseen liittyvät prosessit ilmentävät
fysiologisia toimintoja, kuten hengittämistä tai yskimistä, ja toisaalta kognitiivisia ja
psyykkisiä toimintoja, jotka ilmenevät ulospäin tiettyinä fyysisinä reaktioina (ajatteleminen,
nauraminen tai itkeminen). Käyttäytymisprosessien osallistuja on nimeltään käyttäytyjä
(Behaver). Verbaaliset prosessit ovat sanomisen prosesseja, ja niiden keskeinen merkitys
liittyy viestinvälittämiseen. Sanominen voi olla mitä tahansa symbolista merkitysten
välittämistä. Keskeisiä osallistujarooleja ovat sanoja (Sayer) ja sanomisen kohde (Target).
Myös viestin vastaanottaja (Receiver) ja puhunnos (Verbiage) ovat tärkeitä verbaalisten
prosessien osallistujia. Lisäksi voidaan erottaa vielä eksistentiaalisten prosessien luokka, joka
ilmaisee olemassaoloa tai jonkin ilmiön tapahtumista. Eksistentiaaliprosessin osallistuja on
nimeltään olija (Existent).
Osallistujien lisäksi prosesseihin saattaa liittyä olosuhteita, jotka antavat lisätietoa prosessin
osoittamasta toiminnasta, tapahtumista tai asiaintiloista. Tällaisia ovat esimerkiksi
tapahtumapaikka, -aika, toiminnan tai tekemisen tapa, syy tai tarkoitus. Halliday ja
Matthiessen (2004: 263) tulkitsevat olosuhteet eräänlaisiksi ”pienoisprosesseiksi”, joiden
avulla varsinaiseen prosessiin tuodaan mukaan uusi, alkuperäisen prosessin merkityssuhteita
avaava jäsen.
Aineisto ja sen analyysi
Kuten yllä esitettiin, tutkimukseni aineisto koostui kahden yhdysvaltalaissanomalehden, The
New York Postin (NYP) ja The New York Timesin (NYT), pääkirjoituksista, jotka julkaistiin
lehdissä vuoden 2008 presidentinvaalitaiston aikana. Molemmat lehdet ovat alueensa
valtalehtiä, ja lehtien levikki on toisiinsa verrattavissa, mutta lehdet eroavat tyylillisesti
toisistaan. Lisäksi molemmat lehdet kannattivat vuoden 2008 presidentinvaaleissa eri
ehdokasta, minkä vuoksi ne valikoituivat tarkastelun kohteeksi. Aineisto koostui kaikkiaan
158 pääkirjoituksesta (NYP 78, NYT 80), joista kaksitoista valittiin tarkempaan
transitiivisuusanalyysiin. Analyysi suoritettiin kahdessa osassa, ensin van Dijkin ideologista
neliötä hyödyntäen ja sitten Hallidayn transitiivisuusteoriaa soveltaen.
Ideologisessa analyysissa kaikki tarkastelun kohteena olevat 158 pääkirjoitusta jaoteltiin
ehdokaskohtaisesti myönteisiin, kielteisiin ja molempia kantoja esiin tuoviin teksteihin. Näin
tutkittiin lehtien asennoitumista omaan ja vastaehdokkaaseen van Dijkin makrostrategioiden
avulla. Pääkirjoitukset, joita ei pystytty luokittelemaan, jätettiin pois analyysista; lisäksi oman
luokkansa muodostivat pääkirjoitukset, joissa ehdokasta ei mainittu ollenkaan.
Tarkempaan transitiivisuusanalyysiin valittiin kuusi pääkirjoitusta kummastakin
sanomalehdestä. Molemmissa lehdissä kolme pääkirjoitusta käsitteli omaa ehdokasta ja kolme
vastaehdokasta. Näistä kolmesta tekstistä yksi edusti ehdokkaaseen myönteisesti suhtautuvaa
kirjoitusta, yksi kielteisesti suhtautuvaa kirjoitusta ja yksi vaihtelevasti suhtautuvaa
kirjoitusta. Tekstien valinta perustui ideologiseen analyysiin, sillä haluttiin tutkia, näkyykö
ideologisen neliön osoittama asennoituminen osallistujaroolien valinnassa (aiemmat
tutkimukset väittävät, että osallistujaroolit voivat toimia ideologian välineenä).
Tutkimuksen tulokset osoittavat, että sanomalehdet poikkesivat ideologisen analyysin osalta
huomattavasti toisistaan. NYP käsitteli omaa ehdokastaan melko harvoin ja mainitsi oman
ehdokkaansa ainoastaan puolessa kaikista pääkirjoituksista (n = 43, 55,1 %), kun taas
vastaehdokas mainittiin lähes joka tekstissä (n = 73, 93,6 %). Sen lisäksi NYP käsitteli omaa
ehdokastaan huomattavan myönteiseen sävyyn, sillä yli kolme neljännestä (n = 30, 78,9 %)
niistä pääkirjoituksista, joissa oma ehdokas mainittiin, suhtautui ehdokkaaseen suopeasti.
NYT sen sijaan mainitsi molemmat ehdokkaat pääkirjoituksissaan melko tasapuolisesti (oma
ehdokas n = 69, 86,3 % ja vastaehdokas n = 76, 95,0 %). Lisäksi käsittely oli neutraalimpaa,
sillä omaan ehdokkaaseen suhtauduttiin alle puolessa teksteistä yksinomaan positiivisesti ja
valtaosassa kielteisesti tai vaihtelevasti (n = 35, 58,3 %).
Suhtautumisessa vastaehdokkaaseen molemmat lehdet noudattivat kielteistä linjaa ja täten
lehdet eivät eronneet vastaehdokkaan kohdalla yhtä paljon toisistaan. Siitä huolimatta NYP:n
pääkirjoituksista yli kaksi kolmasosaa (n = 49, 70,0 %) suhtautui vastaehdokkaaseen
yksinomaan kielteisesti. Jos huomioidaan lisäksi, että NYP:n pääkirjoituksissa vastaehdokas
oli huomattavan paljon enemmän esillä kuin oma ehdokas, tulosten negatiivinen tulkinta
korostuu. NYT:n kohdalla asenne vastaehdokkaaseen oli kielteinen puolessa teksteistä (n =
40, 54,1 %). Voidaankin todeta, että NYP:n suostuttelustrategia nojautui
sensaationhakuisempiin keinoihin kuin NYT:llä. Vaikka molemmat sanomalehdet kirjoittivat
presidenttiehdokkaista van Dijkin ideologisen neliön mukaisesti, NYP hyödynsi
makrostrategioita selvemmin.
Erot selittynevät pitkälti tyylillisillä eroilla lehtien välillä. Koska NYP keskittyi
pääkirjoituksissaan hyökkäämään vastaehdokkaan persoonaa vastaan eikä niinkään kritisoinut
tätä asiaperustein, vastaehdokkaan (Obama) asema korostui pääkirjoituksissa ja hän sai
huomattavasti enemmän näkyvyyttä kuin lehden oma ehdokas (McCain). Toisen ehdokkaan
mustamaalaaminen siis aiheutti sen, ettei palstatilaa jäänyt oman ehdokkaan esiin tuomiseen.
Toisaalta Obaman ehdokkuuden herättämä kiinnostus mediassa laajemmin saattoi yllyttää
NYP:n kirjoittamaan demokraattien ehdokkaasta aggressiivisesti. Kirjoittamalla näkyvämmin
NYP varmisti, että saa oman äänensä kuuluviin moniäänisessä mediakentässä. NYT sen
sijaan suhtautui presidenttiehdokkaisiin neutraalimmin. Se esitteli myös omasta linjastaan
poikkeavia mielipiteitä ja pyrki pysymään vankasti asia-aiheissa. NYT:llä ei kenties ollut
vastaavaa tarvetta kuin NYP:llä nostaa jompaakumpaa ehdokasta erityisesti esille
kirjoituksissaan, sillä lehden omaa ehdokasta (Obama) puitiin mediassa muutenkin laaja-
alaisesti eikä vastustajan korostaminen olisi ollut tarkoituksenmukaista. NYT:n
pääkirjoituksista välittyikin kyky ja halu keskusteluun ja kompromissien etsimiseen.
Transitiivisuusanalyysin osalta tulokset jäivät osin epäselviksi. Molemmissa sanomalehdissä
toteutuivat tietyt yleiset periaatteet, kuten se, että mitä enemmän yksittäisestä ehdokkaasta
tekstissä puhuttiin, sitä useammassa osallistujaroolissa tämä esiintyi. Samoin ehdokas, josta
pääkirjoituksessa pääosin kirjoitettiin, esiintyi useammassa osallistujaroolissa kuin vähemmän
esillä oleva ehdokas. Kuitenkin NYT käytti systemaattisesti monipuolisempaa semanttisten
roolien valikoimaa teksteissään, ja esimerkiksi relationaaliset prosessit olivat laajemmassa
käytössä kuin NYP:llä, mistä voidaan päätellä, että NYT:n status ns. laatulehtenä vaikutti
keskeisesti prosessityyppien ja osallistujaroolien esiintymiseen. Hallidayn ja Matthiessenin
(2004: 248) mukaan relationaalisia prosesseja suositaan arvostetuissa ja muodollisissa
rekistereissä, kuten tieteen ja hallinnon kielessä sekä lakiteksteissä. Analyysin perusteella
voidaankin olettaa, että tyylillisillä ja rekisterieroilla oli huomattava merkitys
transitiivisuusrakenteiden määräytymisessä.
Tämän lisäksi havaittiin, että molemmat sanomalehdet käyttivät yksittäisiä osallistujarooleja
sekä myönteisten että kielteisten merkitysten välittämiseen ja siksi molemmat ehdokkaat
kuvattiin tilanteesta riippuen sekä asiantuntevina ja osaavina että epävarmoina ja
tietämättöminä tekijöinä, kokijoina ja sanojina. Lisäksi molemmat ehdokkaat esiintyivät eri
prosessityypeissä käytännössä yhtä usein, minkä vuoksi ei löytynyt näyttöä, että
prosessityyppejä tai osallistujarooleja olisi käytetty suostuttelun välineinä esittämällä ehdokas
vain tietynlaisten prosessien välityksellä. Tästä johtuen jäi epäselväksi, missä määrin erot
prosessityyppien ja osallistujaroolien välillä johtuivat ideologisista valinnoista ja missä
määrin muista seikoista. Tyylilliset, rekisteriin ja muodollisuuteen liittyvät erot lehtien välillä
olivat joka tapauksessa tärkeä osallistujaroolien käyttöön vaikuttava tekijä.
Kaiken kaikkiaan tutkielmani tarjosi tärkeän näkökulman transitiivisuuden käytettävyyteen
pääkirjoitusten analyysissä. Koska Hallidayn teoria on monitahoinen ja perustuu lauseessa
sisäkkäin ilmeneviin prosesseihin, teorian soveltaminen käytäntöön vaatii aikaa ja
asiantuntemusta. Lisäksi aineistoissa ilmenevät abstraktit elementit hankaloittavat tulkintaa.
Siksi transitiivisuusanalyysin hyödyt jäivät tässä työssä kyseenalaisiksi. Tämän tutkimuksen
nojalla voidaan kuitenkin todeta, ettei analyysi vahvistanut aiemmissa tutkimuksissa havaittua
yhteyttä osallistujaroolien ja ideologian välillä. Toisaalta, koska aineisto oli suhteellisen
suppea, ei ideologisten motiivien olemassaoloa voida sulkea täysin pois.
